"despite Wenda's calls for an end to Indonesia's illegal occupation "

This raises the interesting question what constitutes, or could constitute legal occupation of a territory by a State, and the underlying question what underlies State sovereignty.

For example, what makes the Australian government's occupation of Australia legal? Captain Cook sailed up the side of a whole continent and declared it belongs to his royal master, while his letters of instruction granted him no such authority? The ratification of his act by later acts of the British government? Yet how so? What happened to the pre-existing ownership rights? And how could one group have claimed such sovereignty as against another.

For another example, talk of Western Australian secession has long met with the reply that such is "illegal". Really? How could a majority vote in 1900, of adult white males in a population of three million, bind their far more numerous successors today? And why should they?

Australia constantly says it recognises the right of self-determination of peoples, and supported the secession of East Timor and Kosovo I think. But who determines the decision-making collectivity, and why should it be that one? Why do some people have a superior right to exercise ownership rights over others - for what else is sovereignty but a claim of a right to compel obedience?

So yes, the people West Papua should be freed from compulsory obeidence to their Indonesian political overlords - but why should West Papuan political overlords be in any better position?

While blaming Australia is a useful tactic in promoting a humanitarian cause (every cause?)...

West Papua was and is a case of Indonesian neo-colonialism and Indonesia's (particularly the Javanese) wilful ignorance of human rights.

West Papua is a case of United Nations colonialism and corruption.

Sovereignty is the basic concept of the United Nations Charter. Since 1945 there has been increasing acceptance of the Charter as membership spreads, for example the UN Charter became law in the US and Australia in 1945. The concept is simple, sovereignty belongs to the people who have the option of investing their sovereignty into a nation state such as the Americans did in 1776 and the Australians did from 1890 to 1901.

Non-self-governing territories like West Papua are dealt with in Chapter XI, XII, and XIII of the UN Charter. Until 1962 the Netherlands was subject to Chapter XI for the treatment of the colony when the UN approved an agreement making the UN subject to Chapters XII and XIII of the Charter for West Papua.

West Papua is what is called a "trust territory".
All trust territories remain a trust territory until they become a member of the United Nations, at which time article 78 of the Charter says trusteeship ends.

Trouble is, the UN accepted a $100m bribe, US help with a $200m bond scheme while the US was blackmailing the Netherlands into the 1962 agreement. The UN trusteeship is meant to protect human rights, but in this case the US businessmen (Robert Lovett and Rockefellers) wanted Indonesian occupation so they could get a cheap mining license.

By time of a deadline in the 1962 agreement for the UN to recognise the Papuan people's sovereignty, the Kennedys were dead and Nixon helped keep journalists out of West Papua while the Indonesians implemented what they called "act of free choice" (I hold a gun at your head, and you have free choice to say yes or no to me)

What the UN did to try and coverup the trusteeship was make a self-serving resolution claiming the Secretary General has completed his part under the 1962 agreement. Reuters said West Papua was part of Indonesia, and for 44 years the newspapers have been repeating the Reuters claim without checking the facts. You can read about it at http://colonyWestPapua.info

Rachael, Thank you for your article but you have fallen for layer-3 of the lies.

Lie to public: West Papuans voted to be part of Indonesia
Lie to UN: Indonesia invaded and the 1962 agreement will save world peace
Lie to Kennedy: It is a Cold-war sacrifice

Truth, the cold war architect Robert Lovett was a director of the US mining company that wanted Papua's wealth. It was always about the gold and copper. Moscow supported the US plan because it wanted trade with Indonesia. But we need focus, and its a simple question is West Papua a trust territory?

The UN membership tried to coverup the trusteeship in 1969 because everyone wanted trade with Indonesia and the US. But as a Security Council member Australia has a legal duty to ask if West Papua is a trust territory.

What can the media do? Ask "is West Papua a trust territory?"
What can lawyers like Geoffrey Robertson, John Dowd, and Jennifer Robinson do? Talk to the media about whether West Papua seems to be a trust territory.

It wasn't public pressure that freed East Timor, it was the International Court of Justice that in 1995 said East Timor is a non-self-governing territory entitled to self-determination. That stopped Australia and the US from saying East Timor was a sovereign part of Indonesia, then Norway awarded the Peace prize to Horta and Below; so the oil company decided it had to switch sides from Indonesia to the East Timorese. Jakarta released East Timor because the oil company and its allies told Jakarta it had to. That's why the oil company is still there.

With media asking if West Papua is a trust territory, one of the UN members will finally do the right thing and ask that question at the Security Council or the General Assembly.

for a quarter of a century Australia kept ignoring what was happening in East Timor - until that UN decision and the referendum where people risked their lives to vote for freedom. Australia is now ignoring West Papua but eventually the same thing will happen but a great many people will have perished by then.

Perhaps if Australia were a bit more pro-active and stood up more for those small 'non-self governing' places, but it's probably waiting for the right time, the right place and the right people to make up its mind before it finally acts in its own self-interest.

West Papua is an integral part of Indonesia, as acknowledged by UN and the whole international community. Indonesia has stronger legal claim over Papua compared to the criminal white occupation over Australia. There were never any genocide in Papua, instead the native Papuan pop tripled from 500,000 in 1963 to 1.5 million today (plus 1.8 million non-Papuan migrants). Indonesia will never allow separatism to succeed, hence Papua will forever remain a part of Indonesia.

East Timor can became independent only because Indonesian President Habibie unexpectedly and unilaterally decided to give referendum in 1999, as such separatism can only succeed if it was a gift from Indonesian govt. Today, no Indonesian president will ever allow such mistake to be repeated.

Proud to be Indonesian
said: "West Papua is an integral part of Indonesia, as acknowledged by UN"

Oh good you again, now tell us where the UN has said West Papua is part of Indonesia. Because it did not say it in 1969, nor did it say it in this historical summary http://archives.un.org/ARMS/sites/ARMS/uploads/files/Finding%20Aids/Missions/ag-059%20UNTEA.pdf

Indonesia has only been an administrator of the UN trust territory.

Daeron, so then how is Indonesia going in administering this "trust territory"? Funny how the UN never seems to be able to answer the awkward questions, despite the billions it receives mostly from countries it despises.

Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 12 March 2013 8:12:54 AM

>>This raises the interesting question what constitutes, or could constitute legal occupation of a territory by a State, and the underlying question what underlies State sovereignty.>>

Here is the correct answer:

>>A state has sovereignty over territory so long as it has the means and will to defend the territory against those who want to take it away.>>

Full stop.

Since nobody believes they can take Tibet away from China it remains Chinese sovereign territory. China's sovereignty is unchallenged.

Sometimes a cause becomes fashionable – eg the "Palestinians" – and external pressure may be brought to bear on a state. In that case sovereignty becomes challengable.

The cause of the West Papuans is not fashionable so they cannot rely on help from that source. For now Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua does not face serious challenges. Australia is not a serious challenger even were it minded to try.

Another cause that is not fashionable is that of the Darfuris in Sudan.

To make your cause fashionable it helps if you can construct a narrative that puts the blame on the never-to-be-sufficiently damned Americans or Israelis or, preferably, both.

What is "legal" or "illegal"?

It's what the mighty and powerful say it is.

What is "international law"?

It exists to provide a legal fig leaf for the victors to have their way with the vanquished if they can get their hands on them.

C'est la guerre

@Daeron: Funny comment, if you read in Wikipedia, the UN trusteeship already cease to exist in 1994 (Palau was the last UN trustee area to gain independence). West Papua was never a UN trust territory, there was only a short UNTEA administration period (August 1962 - May 1963) before integration into Indonesia on May 1963. Currently, it is not in UN list of non-self governing territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories). As I said, Indonesia has unchallenged sovereignity over West Papua, and all 240 million Indonesians intend to defend this sovereign right to the last breath.

Dear "Proud to be Indonesian",
That is a sad attempt at deflection.
Wikipedia is not not a legal authority, nor are the web-pages at un.org which are all covered by disclaimers in their copyright & "terms of use" notices that they are not authoritative and readers use them at their own risk.
Nor does your claim "all 240 million Indonesians intend to defend this sovereign right to the last breath" have any bearing on the legal facts that West Papua became a trust territory in 1962 and until the UN recognises an act of self-determination and then recognises West Papua as a member of the United Nations, it will remain a trust territory.

The current French president of the Trusteeship Council possibly needs to be given a copy of the agreement and the General Assembly approval, resolution 1752 (XVII), and then he will have to call a meeting of the UN Trusteeship Council.
The Security Council members while wearing their hats as the Trusteeship Council will no doubt want to save mitigate Indonesia having a temper tantrum, and will therefore use General Assembly resolution 172(II) to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide its advice.
It is the ICJ and not Wikipedia or any officer worker writting a web page which gets to determine the legal issues of sovereignty and trusteeship.
:)

Proud to be Indonesian:

See:

IN RELIGION’S NAME

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/indonesia0213_ForUpload_0.pdf

Abuses against Religious Minorities in Indonesia

>>We get nervous every time we go to the mosque, especially those with children. We’re afraid to bring them. We also have Sunday school which now is done [in private homes]. We are very afraid. The women often don’t come to pray if we see people in white robes [worn by several militantIslamist groups in West Java>>.

−Titik Sartika, the head of an Ahmadiyah women’s group in Bekasi, West Java, on intimidation that her community faces from Islamist militants,November 2011.

Ahmad Masihuddin, a 25-year-old Ahmadiyah student, recalled, “They held my hands and cut my belt with a machete. They cut my shirt, pants, and undershirt. I was only in my underwear. They took 2.5 million rupiah (US$270) and my Blackberry [cell phone]. They tried to take off my underwear and cut my penis. I was laying in the fetal position. I tried to protect my face, but my left eye was stabbed. Then I heard them say, ‘He is dead, he is dead.’”

And this:

>>On February 6, 2011, in Cikeusik, a village in western Java, around 1,500 Islamist militants attacked two dozen members of the Ahmadiyah religious community with stones, sticks, and machetes. The mob shouted, “You are infidels! You are heretics!” As captured on video, local police were present at the scene but many left when the crowd began descending on the Ahmadiyah house. By the time the attack was over, three Ahmadiyah men had been bludgeoned to death.>>

Note:

>>As captured on video, local police were present at the scene but many left when the crowd began descending on the Ahmadiyah house>>

The 107 page report paints an alarming picture of discrimination and violence directed against Ahmadiyah, Christians, Hindus, Shia and Sufi.

>>Dedi Priadi and Gerry Lufthy Yudistira, father and son, members of Al-Qiyadah Al-Islamiyah sufi sect, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in May 2008 by the Padang court, West Sumatra, for blasphemy.>>

Note: for blasphemy!

Here is the truth:
Indonesia only get 1% royalty from grasberg. It is true they are the largest taxpayer (17 trillion rupiah). But the whole state funds allocated for papua amounts to more than 30 trillion.
For each individual in java and sumatra, the govt allocate only $300 of state funds. While individual in papua get $1000, the highest of any province in indonesia.

@Daeron:

You can fantasize about your wet-dream scenario of getting help from ICJ. We Indonesians prefer to deal with facts and reality. Your delusion is a sign of your desparation.

@smayer:

Copying and pasting from the internet will not change the fact that West Papua will remain Indonesian.

@bowo88:

This is true, West Papua is only 1% of Indonesian GDP. In fact, the area is highly dependent on central govt subsidies.

Proud to be Indonesian

wrote:

>>@smayer:

Copying and pasting from the internet will not change the fact that West Papua will remain Indonesian.>>

I've no doubt it will. That was not my point.

I was simply pointing out that Indonesia could turn out to be quite a nasty - indeed threatening - neighbour for Australia. It could turn into a Jihadi state.

@smeyer:

If you read Indonesian history, you can see that Indonesia has successfully defeated serious Darul Islam insurgency back when Indonesia was a weak infant nation in 1950s, and Indonesian parliament has rejected attempts to insert Islamic law into the constitution when the country was in serious multi-dimensional crisis in 2002.

The actions of some fringe groups (akin to America's KKK) has no bearing on the overwhelming story of tolerance between the 800 ethnic-groups and six religions of Indonesia. Otherwise, the country would have collapsed a long time ago.

I doubt that many of the comments so far have added much to the clear, sane argument of the original author. She is to be congratulated for such a sensible piece of journalism.

"Indonesia" is a construct. Its language was more or less invented- I believe by Sukarno and others. What lands are or aren't in Indonesia is whatever suits the government of the day. We had Sukarno's "war' on Malaysia for a time. Tinpot dictators make war to suit their propaganda purposes.

The Indonesian Government human rights record is horrific. Look at the sorry tale of East Timor, with nuns raped, women men and kids herded into a church and set on fire, people shot on sight.

Come on Bob Carr: do something useful. Your record on the national stage hasn't been very impressive so far. Stand up for decent people and help the poor folk of West Papua.

Proud to be Indonesian wrote:

>>The actions of some fringe groups (akin to America's KKK) has no bearing on the overwhelming story of tolerance between the 800 ethnic-groups and six religions of Indonesia. Otherwise, the country would have collapsed a long time ago.>>

Maybe.

I hope you're right.

On the other hand what happened during the Sukarno era is about as reliable a guide to future course of Indonesia as what happened during the time of the Shah tells us about the future of Iran.

Iran was not a theocracy until, one day, it was.

The HRW report documents widespread and systematic discrimination against Ahmadiyya and other minorities and many of them appear to be officially sanctioned. It doesn't look like a fringe group. And, BTW, the KKK was not always a fringe group either.

Finally, I am always suspicious of countries that have "blasphemy" laws on the books. (Which date from the Sukarno era)

Bronte wrote:

>>Come on Bob Carr: do something useful.... help the poor folk of West Papua.>>

What exactly is Carr, the foreign minister of a small, geographically isolated and largely powerless nation supposed to do?

Pity on you haters, Indonesia is on it's way to fulfill it's true potential.
The writer of this article is certainly biased by telling only one side of the argument.
Bahasa indonesia is de facto trade language within the archipelago for hundreds of years already. Only it was known as malay before. Bahasa Indonesia is formaliized as national language during 1928 youth pledge, where youths across the entire east indies (including representative from papua) gather and pledge unity under one identity and one language.
Atrocities in east timor were comitted by a fallen regime. The people of indonesia defeated suharto, and pave the way to referendum and eventually east timor independence.
Shame on you for trying to potray east timor as religious persecution. In truth, violence has no religion. There are christians within the national army who died in east timor. 5 of 13 indonesian killed by rebel militia in papua recently were christians from tana toraja, south sulawesi.

Bowo88 wrote:

>>Pity on you haters, Indonesia is on it's way to fulfill it's true potential.>>

On current trends it will be Indonesia, not tiny and insignificant Australia, that will be calling the shots in this region within a couple of decades.

So what kind of a neighbour will Indonesia be?

Will it be a peaceable democracy? Will Australia play the role of "Canada" to the dominant Indonesia - a relationship that is at times uncomfortable but not threatening?

Or will Indonesia become an aggressive power? Will the relationship be more like that of Finland with the former Soviet Union?

Or will it be somewhere in between?

Could Australia actually find itself in the same position as Israel - a small enclave, neighbouring a large hostile power, though with the advantage of having no land border with Indonesia.

I don't know the answers.

Do you?

Am I a "hater" for raising these questions?

You do know that Indonesia's military spending is growing rapidly - it has tripled in the past half-decade? Among the purchases is the nucleus of a modern submarine fleet.

Do you think Australians should bury their heads in the sand and pretend the rise of Indonesia will not affect the balance of power and the security situation in this region?

Get real!

@Bronte: LOL, you've got to be kidding. The creation of Indonesia is the popular will of the Indonesian people. Otherwise the country would not have survived the past turbulent 70 years. Meanwhile, it is quite clear that Indonesia consists of all the former Netherlands Indies, which has always been our claim since 1945.

@smeyer: Don't worry, Indonesians generally don't care much about Australia. Sorry to say, your country is just too insignificant in Asian affairs, it is far-off to compare yourself with Israel.

Countries which commit human rights abuses, such as Indonesia has done in West Papua, East Timor and other parts of South East Asia, are always afraid of bad publicity.
Bob Carr should speak out against what the Indonesian army does: abuse the Papuans and exploit the resources of West Papua for the gain of a few.

Outbreaks of religious panic against Christians are licensed by the army. Villages are burned by the army. The government of Indonesia must rein in the army.

Australians who travel to Bali are only assisting the army, which has large successful holdings there. Carr is the weak arm of a government afraid to speak up.

@Bronte: You are way off from reality on the ground, maybe due to too much listening to fairy-tale separatist propaganda.

If anyone try to challenge the unity of Indonesia, they will face not only the Indonesian military, but the entire 240 million Indonesians.

PS Bob Carr is not as stupid as you thought.

By their own account of the transfer of West Papua from Dutch to Indonesian hands, the United Nations reveal a process of slow and bumbling bureaucracy that could have been handled much better:

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unsfbackgr.html

Despite patting themselves on their backs for doing such a good job ("On the completion of UNTEA, the Secretary-General declared that it had been a unique experience, which had once again proved the capacity of the United Nations to undertake a variety of functions, provided that it received adequate support from its Member States"), it seems to me that the UN must take some responsibility for the state of West Papua today. They delayed action and decision-making for over a decade, during which unrest naturally simmered. Then, in true UN fashion, they declared a job well done and walked away. Is it any surprise that unrest continues?

As for Australia intervening ... while noble, would it serve our national interests? Isn't that the job of the UN? Do we really want the separatists to have their way and establish another unsustainable independent nation occupying the other half of the island just to our north? These are all rational, though probably not entirely ethical, questions to be asked.

In an ideal world, we would be willing and able to deal with all human rights abuses in our region. I would love to live in that ideal world. However, I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) the reasons why Bob Carr will do nothing here.

@stevenlmeyer
By "haters", I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to bronte. Honestly I think you have raised some valid points during this discussion. I respect that.

In response to your post, I don't think australia have anything to worry about Indonesia's military power during the next 10-15 years. Our military right now is still below the so-called MEF (minimum essential force). For example we still inplement to this day short ranged surface to air missile with 30-40 yrs old technology. In a war with modern military power such as united states or australia, your missiles or stealth bombers could hit jakarta very easily. I have no doubt Indonesia would some day become major military power (it's a natural thing, considering we have HUGE territory and population we need to defend) , but not sooner than 2030.
I think the people of indonesia have had enough with dictators such as soekarno and soeharto. And fundamentalist movement does not get much support here.
The indonesian public is very sensitive with territorial issue, but it's defensive rather than offensive. For example the ambalat islands dispute with malaysia. (It's the closest thing to a full scale war we have been since east timor).
As long as australia doesn't interfere about papua all will be OK. When you read article like this you should remember that situation in papua is nowhere as chaotic or repressive as the writer try to imply. Since 98 indonesia has implemented regional autonomy, before 98 all infrastructure project was massively corrupted and centered on java and sumatra, now east indonesia is catching up with faster growth, including in papua.

yes, yes, I'm sure the government in Java is fully understanding of the Melanesian people in Papua and wants the best for them. They are full of kindness and gentle humility.

Just as long as their army can keep making money out of the place and burn villages who cooperate with anyone who prefers independence.