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.