PTBI, you wrote; “Ludwig, Your posts are mostly correct, except the last part about Australia "watching" Indonesia. This statement implies Australia has "moral superiority" and try to act as "defender of humanity" over Indonesia.”

No, no. You are reading implications into my statement that were not intended. Just as many countries carefully watch what is happening in various trouble-spots around the world, and as various countries watch Australia, especially regarding asylum-seeker issues, Australia will be observing happenings in West Papua.

The implication in my statement is that we won’t be turning a blind eye and will let discontent be known loudly, just as Indonesia did over Australia’s actions recently.

This must be viewed as a good thing. Every country has a right to watch its neighbours and attempt to maintain or increase accountability. It does not imply superiority.

You presumably agree with my statement; “Yes it is reasonable to consider Indonesia’s responses and desires.” But then you wrote; “Australia…never has and never will have any influence in Indonesia's internal affairs.”

Well that’s not fair and reasonable. If you agree with my statement then you must surely agree that it is fair and reasonable for Australia to expect to have some bearing on some aspects of Indonesian internal affairs.

PTBI - sorry to disappoint, but your 'truth' doesnt hurt. Its an unfortunate fact of life that weaker cultures are invaded by stronger ones. This process has happened since the beginning of time. Indonesia was originally Hindu, was it not? Now it is Muslim.

Re John Howards refusal to 'apologise' to aboriginals - in whose name should he apologise? Not in my name, certainly, since my ancestors were not in Australia at the time of settlement. What you are proposing - that Australians in general should apologise to aboriginals for things that were done by other white people a few hundred years ago- is clearly absurd. How about post WWII immigrants? Are they required to 'apologise' too?

Native title rights in Australia vary from limited right of access to visit important places, or to hunt and fish to a right to possess, occupy, use and enjoy the land in a way similar to freehold ownership. Native title rights may also include the right to carry out other kinds of traditional customs. Native title holders have the right to be compensated if governments acquire their land or waters for future developments, and may also have a right to negotiate over mining developments and mineral exploration. Has Indonesia granted this right to West New Guineans regarding the gold mines in their country?

The Australian Federal govt. spends A$3 billion ($2.2 billion) a year on aboriginal welfare of various kinds. Perhaps you should do some research on this also.

In reply to your question ‘What will Australians think if Indonesia sheltered Osama bin Laden ..."

I guess we would think the same as we already think about the ‘cleric’ Abu Bakar Bashir’s 30 month prison sentence for his part in the deaths of 200-odd people, including 88 Australians. His conviction and prison term are about to be overthrown, are they not? Indonesia has plenty of big brave jihadis (who behead teenage girls) plotting our destruction. Too bad the Indonesian government is more concerned with nailing western drug dealers than doing something about Islamic terrorism.

Indonesians complain about Australia's role in East Timor becoming independent, but what were the facts?

Howard wrote a letter to President Habibie in December 1999 suggesting a referendum for East Timor after a period of experience in autonomy like the French did very successfully for New Caledonia. A month later, Habibie announced a referendum, but no transition period. At the same time, TNI set up militias to terrorise the population into supporting the "autonomy" option. At the time, Megawati rightly criticised Habibie for giving the East Timorese a vote on freedom, but at the same time denying them a free choice by setting up militias.

Australia forcefully rebuffed suggestions that the UN personnel overseeing the vote be armed in the face of militia agression. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that the US might even have supported the sending of armed UN personnel if Australia had not so stridently opposed this in August 1999. Interfet forces were only finally sent in after Clinton threatened a economic embargo against Indonesia if it didnot "invite" in UN forces to contain militia violence. Australia contributed the bulk of Interfet firepower only after Indonesia (under duress mainly from the US) invited the UN in.

Interesting article… and a thoroughly amusing debate on this thread.

Some consistent theme’s need to be applied here. One, Indonesia has a dark, dark history when it comes to human rights abuses. To attempt to defend them is to either be clinically biased of definitively stupid. Two, Australia also has a disgraceful record itself with regards to its Indigenous peoples, and for that we should all be ashamed, as it continues to this day. To say, ‘it wasn’t my ancestors so not my problem’ is absurd. If you are a citizen of this country you are responsible for everything that occurs, sitting idly by in silence is no defence to anything.

The West Papuan people have an inalienable right to self-determination, just like the Indigenous people of this country. If they choose to fight for it, they are entitled to do so. If they are persecuted, killed and locked up as a result of that trying, then they are entitled to seek ‘refuge’ in a country that has the ability to accommodate them.

It is high time people in this country accepted that we need to be accepting more and more immigrants. We live in a global world, and someone’s nationality or country of origin should not determine their ability to be free from genocide or other forms of state persecution. Hell, its not like we have any shortage of space here!

Perhaps jkenno and many of the contributors to this page should move into the real world.

Australia takes more refugees per capita than most other countries. The new arrangements for offshore processing are not about stopping refugees leaving their country. They will be processed and if their claims are deemed legitimate they will be re-settled either in another country or perhaps in Australia. When you are a refugee you might have a preference for a particular country but not a right to choose the country.

This policy is simply about letting people in other countries know that you can't just set sail for Australia and that's it.

“It is high time people in this country accepted that we need to be accepting more and more immigrants.”

For goodness sake jkenno, you must be completely ignorant of sustainability issues and hence the very survival of society as we know it to advocate such an opinion? And even if Australia greatly boosted its immigration intake it would hardly make a dent on the world stage in terms of the numbers of people who aspire to our quality of life.

“If you are a citizen of this country you are responsible for everything that occurs, sitting idly by in silence is no defence to anything.”

Excuse me! What sillyness!! I am not responsible for everything that occurs in this country. If I was, things would be radically different. I even feel dispossessed of my 10 millionth (or however many voters there are) of the responsibility, by not having any decent representatives to vote for in the last few elections, not having any say whatsoever in national decision-making and being totally ignored despite having been an ardent lobbyer for many years of a variety of issues.

“The West Papuan people have an inalienable right to self-determination”

Self-determination may be the best way to go. But it may well not be, for a people who are basically a set of more or less independent tribal groups, who have no experience with nation-building, and who can not really be expected to develop an efficient and hassle-free system of central government that caters for all people across very rugged and largely isolated terrain. Just look at the history of PNG. There may be merit in them being part of Indonesia, PNG or Australia.

You could more realistically argue that each tribal group, language group or village should have self-determination, as they have had until recently. But of course, we are never going to go back to that.