This is an interesting, but limited, article.

The much needed link to the actual text of the agreement is at http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/indonesia/ind-aus-sec06.html

Its obvious that countries make agreements for their own national interests. The author's simplistic argument appears to be Indonesia has a poor human rights record so the bilateral Agreement only applies to what the TNI [Indonesian Army] wants and that the TNI can ignore the rest.

Its actually crucial to Indonesia that they receive large amoounts of aid from the US and Australia. To do this Indonesia has to recognise it has an internal terrorist problem (usually generalised as "JI").

What the auther has left out of his TNI centric article is the key sections of Article 3 dealing with counter-terrorism, ie:

- Law Enforcement Cooperation (including Financing of terrorism);
- Counter-terrorism Cooperation
- Intelligence Cooperation

These sections strengthen the ability of Australian and Indonesian bodies to cooperate in preventing more bombings of Australians in Bali or elsewhere in Indonesia.

Distrust of governments aside I'm surprised this aspect was left out of the article.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

From one who has taken a deep interest in Western history, the impression of the older changed John Howard, has been of a neo-colonialist, who has adopted the appearance of a successful 19th century statesman, the confident look not backed now by the power of pax Britannica but by the power of pax Americana.

Such shows that Howard is not a born leader, and with the US facing another Vietnam in the Middle East, and in economics almost playing second fiddle to country's like China, India and an oil-gas sales energised Russia, we could wonder how Howard will now make out.

His rhetoric lately unfortunately seems to be overplayed, too much like the wounded George Bush. All the implications yesterday about Australia being so glad to be part of an emerging New World Eastern Order.

Certainly sounds too much like some of the former colonialists after WW2, preaching glad tidings with the real truth hidden behind in the minds.

Australia and New Zealand must both face up to it, if America is forced to go isolationist through even a temporary failure in the Middle East, an Australia stripped completely of an Anglophile dependence on both Britain and America, must surely make us realise we face a different future.

When asked for help from other South East Asian countries, still say yes, but please more humble pie and less of the old neo-colonial air, which we even still bring out in sport, unfortunately.

Howard, Beazley and Rudd should be ashamed.

Who are they to speak for the people of West Papua?

West Papuans deserve a full UN vote on self-determination, just as the East Timorese achieved in 1999.

The Papuans have never had a real say in their own future. The "Act of free choice" was and is a complete joke.

Neither the Indonesian government nor Australian politicians have a right to decide their future for them.

Indonesia has never been Australias friend and never will be.

When the battlelines of World War Three are drawn in the dust. Inodnesia wont be standing on our side of the line.

Thats how I measure who my friends are.

Not those who smile and wear the mask of friendliness.

Treaties arent worth the paper they are written on.

Hitler used to sign treaties with England before the war and Hitler would just walk around the corner and laugh and tear them up.

The analysis of the agreement and its weaknesses is sound, but the rest of the article is complete trash. The author obviously knows nothing about Indonesia, or perhaps he learnt about it running up and down Jalan Thamrin in a batik shirt with Richard Woolcott in 1974.

The author is basically justifying TNI human rights abuses by saying that Indonesia would break up without this abuse. I lived in Indonesia for nine years and have spent time in every one of the previous 27 provinces (plus a few more created since 1999) and I can say that support for succession is very very weak indeed except for West Papua and Aceh. Some non-Muslim regions like Bali and Manado have occasionally threatened succession, but this is largely rhetoric in the new spirit of openness to ensure that their cultural and religious rights are protected.

Can we have some sensible talk about Indonesia please ... not this extremism of Richard Woolcott on the one hand and the "Javanese empire" on the other?