Spot on Tony. The Indonesian request to send the Papuans back without any respect for our international obligations merely highlights Indonesia's lack of respect for it's own obligations to the Papuans. Grovelling to thugs is an open invitation for trouble.

And given the demonstrated history of belligerent Javanese expansionism, it may well be time for us to have a good long look at whether a single Indonesia is really in our long term national interests.

Granting the 42 Papuans who slunk illegally onto our shores was the height of stupidity, and it is impossible to appease Indonesia for that insult.

The important thing for Australia is that Howard has stiffened his spinal column and moved to keep illegals, Papuans and any others used to our hitherto weakness, out of our country.

“Threatened” and “blackmailed” (by Indonesia) is pretty strong stuff. But it is obvious that Indonesia has certainly put the hard word on Australia – don’t treat us with contempt, or you will pay with the withdrawal of vital cooperation in areas of country-hopping illegals and terrorism.

Indonesia has something we need, as we have something Indonesia needs. Mutual interest and back scratching keeps countries friendly with each other. If Howard has to suck up a little to Indonesia, so he damn well should. And he will be very lucky if he manages to fully repair the damage done to the relationship by the granting of TPVs to a bunch of illegal renegades and show ponies from West Papua.

Still, the “humanitarian” Tony Kevin thinks that John Howard should tell Indonesia how to put its house in order, but Indonesia must not say boo to Australia; nor should Australia ‘appease’ Indonesia.

Double standards to push your own agenda, Tony.

Under International Law if someone "requests political assylum" it must be given as a first step and investigated as a second step.

Australia under Howard does whatever it can to undermine this process putting our International image at risk.

Do you deny that the Indonesians can be ruthless authoritarians?

The secret here is that in the end under oppression people rise up and want independence. Do you think the simple request to become an Independent country is worthy of vigorous oppression?

The Indonesians need to change their ways and govern for all of their constituents fairly and evenly and this would reduce seperatist movements.

If Indonesia could modify it's ways and treat their citizens better many of the problems it suffers would go away.

In the modern world there is no longer a place for ruthless oppression as a method of treating people.

The Assylum seekers are genuine refugees and to call them illegal (or the horrid words "boat people")as a first step are not the words of a modern compassionate society.

Please at the very minimum put yourself in the position of those people and walk in their shoes before you start judging them too harshly.

If you haven't been oppressed you probably don't understand oppression. If you haven't been tortured or beaten you probably don't understand torture and beatings. If you haven't had your rights taken from you, you probably don't understand powerlessness.

Anyone can talk tough... but can Australians be compassionate?

Allowing refugees into our country without attempting to solve the cause of the refugees is ridiculous policy.
It is simply a very cruel and incompetent immigration programme which provides us with the shattered few who have survived while ignoring the many who have died.
If a government creates refugees who have a legitimate fear of persecution, then that Government has forfeited their right to be treated as legitimate.Papua NOT Irian Jaya should be immediately quarantined from the Javanese Empire to save lives.

Tony Kevin writes; “But these policies send a wrong message not only to a fairly benign Indonesian Government but also to darker, extreme nationalist elements. The message is that an Australian government can be threatened - indeed blackmailed - into abandoning essential values and interests.”

No!

These policies show that Australia is willing to listen to Indonesian concerns and move the policy balance accordingly, which is perfectly fair and reasonable. If this sort of thing was to keep happening, in ways that were clearly in Indonesia’s interests and against Australia’s, then perhaps there could be an interpretation of threat, blackmail, caving-in, etc.

The tightening of border-protection with respect to West Papua is very much in Australia’s interests as well as Indonesia’s, and is also in the interests of the West Papuans. If anyone wants to take me up on that point, I will elaborate.

“The moral of the story: appeasement only generates further demands. Instead, Canberra should tell Jakarta: ‘You have a problem in Papua because you are not sufficiently respecting the rights of the people there to civil liberties and a fair share of their natural resources. Until you redress these wrongs, you will continue to have insurgency and refugee problems. If refugees seek protection here, we have no alternative but to consider their claims fairly and without political interference.’ “

So-called appeasement helps generate good relations, which everyone must surely agree are pretty damn important with Indonesia. Further demands will get treated on their own merits.

Canberra IS telling Jakarta this sort of thing about problems in West Papua

We are not used to doing what Indonesia's President tells us to do, that situation is usually reserved for the U.S.A President. Anyway, little Johnny Bonsai, has made yet another mistake, of monumental proportions.

I sometimes think we Aussies have a death wish.... we surely seem to have our cultural blinkers on for sure...

Diplomatic Blunder number 1 would be to say things in public which are best kept to private interaction between governments.

One has to have experienced causing Asians to 'loose face' to know just how intensely they feel it. The malay word 'meng-amok' is a verb from the english 'amok' and it means to suddenly go beserk when things pile up on you too much. Then, people go from benign to ultra angry and violent in a split second.

Just imagine how we would feel if some little group in Darwin decided they wanted independance from Canberra and started hacking up the NT police..then ran off to Indonesia and holed up there with the protection of the government.. errr wouldn't we feel they were supportive of such a movement ?

I have total sympathy for the West Papuan cause, but disagree with some manifestations of it, trying to use Australia as some kind of big stick with which to beat up the Indo government. If we Aussies don't like their policy, we should say so clearly and take the consequences, which will SURELY be a FLOOD of assylum seekers given a bit of a prod (like an ak47 in their backs) from the Indo government.

Thats how they work, rather than scream and yell at us, they feel 'actions' speak louder than words.

I guess we are wondering now 2 things:

1/ Should we have given so much aid after the Tsunami ?

2/ Do they actually care if we do or not ? (why not give it to the 10,000 Christian homes destroyed in the Jihad Tsunami in Sulawesi ?)

Its so difficult being friends with those who are doing rotten SOB things to their own population..like the displacement through transmigration, the dilution of culture and the promotion of Islam etc in a predominantly Christian area....

decisions...decisions..

Indonesia has no interest in "intervening" in Australian domestic affairs, just like Australia has no right to intervene in Indonesian domestic affairs like transmigration or religious issues.

We are merely demanding justice! As good neighbours, Australia should not shelter violent criminals who will be shooting at its neighbours' house with AK-47s. Use your common sense! When we asked for Australia NOT to shelter Papuan separatists, we want Australia to stop being source of security threat to our country Indonesia. Only enemy of Indonesia would allow itself to become a base for violent criminals to commit murderous violence on Indonesian citizens. If Indonesia is Israel/USA, Indonesia would have bombed Australia and send agents to assassinate separatists sheltering there!

@BOAZ_David:

Indonesia never say anything about the physical and cultural genocide on Aborigines, you must be lunatic to think you have the right to tell Indonesians where to live in their own country and what religion they should follow.

@Perseus:

LOL, you little fool. Are you threatening Indonesia? What a joke.

Don't dream your little country will be able to "destroy" Indonesia. Australia couldn't even stop thousands of Indonesian fishermen from annually fishing and landing for R&R at Australian mainland at will, you have no capacity to disturb Indonesian territory.

Australia is just a stooge of USA. Your govt will follow whatever foreign policy USA dictates. USA is a good friend of Indonesia since the our war of independence, President Bush called us "important ally against terrorism". Australia will always respect Indonesian integrity accordingly, and I suggest immature boys like you to start taking your role as the loyal US lap-dogs you are and follow what Bush and Howard tell you.

I think you should start using your brain before making comments, boy. Suggesting Australia to go to war with 250 million Indonesians is the most stupid thing I've read in this forum so far.

The moment some moron outfitted these refugees, even the children, with brand new T-Shirts demanding West Papuan independence, presumably for the benefit of the TV cameras, these refugees lost any claim to the moral high ground.

To flee pursecution is one thing, to use Australia as a safe haven for a political purpose is another. Seeing the footage of all of these people wearing politically slogans was just too much of a cynical ploy for me.

Nothing cheers up a well travelled 51 year old like being called a "boy" by Proud TBI. And his emotive leap from my suggestion that a re-examination of what might be in Australia's best interests to his response to an assumed declaration of war is testimony to his own lack of balance and reason.

Aside from all his froth and spittle, it is really a simple question for all australians. Is it better to have one big ugly thug for a neighbour or a mean little punk and a number of poor but honest friends as neighbours?

But as I have said before, it is not the choice of Australians or of the Javanese, it is the choice of the Papuans, Suluwesis, Dayaks, Balinese and Bataks. And if the Javanese can really offer them the best, fairest and most equitable future then they will accept it through free choice.

If Java can offer a good marriage then Indonesia will stay together. If they can only offer a bad marriage then they have no right to hold the marriage together by force and even less right to complain about any divorce.

It is clear to most observers that Indonesia is currently an abusive disfunctional household.

Yes!

Well said Perseus.

Perseus,

Now I'm a big ememy of the Jakarta lobby and I agree 100% with the article. But Indonesia is not dysfunctional and it is not a Javanese empire. Have you ever been to places like Kupang and Manado both of which are predominantly non-Muslim and three hours flight away from Jakarta (that's a lot further away from Canberra than where you live)? In those places, they is very little sentiment for succession. In Manado, some members of the local legislature and student groups demanded independence because of a new law on national education that is seen to favour Muslims, but this demand was really just grandstanding to get their democratic point-of-view across. Also in Manado, almost all public servants including the high-ranking ones are native Minahasa Christian people - not Javanese. The Regional Autonomy Law (No. 22 of 1999) has gven the provinces and districts a lot of power and local people are free to lobby their local governments which they often do very actively.

Please don't confuse today's Indonesia with the Soeharto period. Indonesians are our friends. But when the government goes on about the refugee issue like they have recently, recognise it for what it is - just bluster that ought to be ignored. If our governmet can't realise that, then this is just more proof that it is still dominated by Dick Woolcott's mob that learnt their Indonesia skills in 1974.

Relations between Australia and Indonesia have reached a new low as members of the Indonesian government demand personal apologies from our PM and Foreign Minister for allowing our legal and international obligations to be upheld in the case of the West Papuan asylum seekers.
.
To my way of thinking if we don’t want to see the kind of outcome foreseen by PERSEUS then we must start to advocate the development of a federal state in Indonesia with the ban on regionally based political movements being lifted as a good first step. Javanese hegemony has created an environment which can only lead to disaster if steps are not taken soon to rectify the situation endured by the regional peoples of our nearest neighbour.
It is a fact of real politic that Indonesia’s territorial integrity must be upheld; including West Papua, Ambon etc. despite the tenuous ethnic or historic validity of Indonesian claims. We simply do not want to see the disintegration of Indonesia on our doorstep.
Also, we cannot acquiesce to the demands of the Indonesian s to apologise for properly applying our laws with regard to asylum seekers. The implied threat to retreat from enforcing their people trafficking laws indicates quite clearly how far the Javanese elite has retreated from the obligations which international rules place upon them( if they ever really took them seriously).
Clearly, the only course they can pursue to stop the allegations and revelations of the sort of abuses mentioned above and an ongoing crisis with Australia over asylum seekers is to ensure that all their peoples have a real stake in the state and economy. We can help by encouraging federalist groups and democratic reform in Indonesia.
Some may say that I am suggesting that our system and society is better and that such notions are neo-colonialist. Well, I do think that our system is better and that the maintenance of the Javanese empire by their elites and TNI is leading the Indonesia down a path which will lead inevitably to fragmentation, or a state of permanent civil dispute and repression

Colgradoff,

You obviously listen too much to the Dick Woolcott Jakarta lapdogs on the one hand and to some strange out-dated human rights discourse on the other. It's 2006, man - not 1974! Indonesia has laws on regional autonomy (Laws 22 and 25 of 1999). Its political system is theoretically more democratic than Australia. There have been three democratic full suffrage national elections held there since 2004 while we have only had one in that time. They also had about 10 times more voters in each of these elections that were for the most part largely free and fair - not like in the Soeharto period. I have visited every province in the country, including Papua.

West Papua and Aceh certainly have independence activist movements, but not the rest of Indonesia which is NOT REPEAT NOT a Javanese empire. I lived there for nine years and I should have some idea.

You have the right to demand that Indoneia comply with international human rights norms, but not the right to tell Indonesia to adopt a federal structure of government anymore than you can advise the UK or France on this. Indonesians negotiated a very difficult democractic revolution in 1998-2004. Suggest you read more from valid sources. Try www.thejakartapost.com.

Pride-before-Fall: "I think you should start using your brain before making comments, boy. Suggesting Australia to go to war with 250 million Indonesians is the most stupid thing I've read in this forum so far."

How so? Indonesian troops showed an abject absence of soldierly discipline in Timor, which showed in the high loss of civilian life and the number of rapes. Have things changed? Doubtful, and there's more to fighting an enemy than their troop numbers. Indonesian troops have never been tested in a real war (and who can forget how they folded when faced with a handful of determined Australian and Brituish troops during Konfrontasi?) and have shown their mettle only against primitive tribesmen, women and lightly armed insurgents.

Losses would be high- but I'd back Australia against Indonesia any day. Our airforce and navy would make it impossible to travel between islands in the archipeligo, within days, for a start. So all those thousands of Indonesian troops would be sitting on their backsides with nowhere to go.

Boaz- did the word "amok" not originally come from Malay, and is not an "English" word?

Is it in Australia's interest to be surrounded by failed states? We already have The Solomons, East Timor, and Papua New Guinea. Why wouldn't an 'independent' West Papua be just as much of a mess?
The east Timor debacle was primarily driven by the catholic church and again the churches are stirring things in Papua but Indonesia is not going to let it's most easterly province go. While all the latte lefties convince each other what fine caring people they are real people will be suffering in real villages.

Is E Timor a failed state? it hasn't been around long enough to be so termed. It has good potential.

PNG? Not really. The only one of your examples which rings true is Solomons, and how is that relevant to Papua? It could be argued that with Indonesia's human rights record, it is hardly a "successful" state, and moreover is a modern day colonial empire.

Interesting slant on things when the Church is blamed for supporting the legitimate aspirations of subjugated people, where are you people when Christian schoolgirls are beheaded by heroic Muslim warriors in that (to you) non-failed state, Indonesia?

Rogindon, you blew your credibility when you dismissed fundamental human rights, to which UN Conventions both Australia and Indonesia are signatories, as "some strange out-dated human rights discourse".

And anyone who knows me would consider "latte leftie" as one of the least applicable terms that could be applied to me. This particular grumpy, middle aged, self made right wing ideologue has somehow managed to retain a core belief in the primacy of the inherent dignity of all people. And that dignity of mankind cannot be maintained when people are forced into associations that are not of their choosing.

And as for this fear of "failed states", it should not be forgotten that it was not all that long ago that such a discription could have been applied to most of the OECD nations. It was part of a journey to a better future, they passed through it, they learned, and in so doing derived a greater understanding of the value of good governance. Who are we to deny that road to anyone?

@Narcissist:
Indeed, these "asylum-seekers" themselves admitted they went to Australia as dirty propaganda. The separatists are having their last dying-gasp after they realise transmigrant population has now made-up more than 50% of Papuan population.

@Perseus:
LOL, unfortunately a 51-year-old who talk like a toddler can only be called a "boy". Maybe you shouldn't have done too much mind-numbing activities like drinking beer/grog, smoking pot, and watching AFL.

Actually Indonesia faces NO THREAT from separatism, GAM from Aceh having surrendered while the miniscule Papuan OPM has more influence in Australia than in Papua. 99.9% of Indonesia's 742 ethnic-groups never express any interest in separatism, since "Javanese Empire" only exists in your fantasy. Read rogindon's posts on how Indonesia is more democratic and decentralised nation than Australia.

@Colgadroff:
No worries, as rogindon says, Indonesia is nowhere near "disintegration" as whites are near to being expelled from Australia by Aborigines.

@viking:
LOL, Australian military want to "invade" Indonesia? Your navy and airforce cannot even stop thousands of Indonesian fishing boats from landing in Australian soil and fishing in "Australian" waters at will, yet you said they can "stop travel" between Indonesian islands, the biggest archipelago on earth. What a joke.

Why don't you ask about Indonesian military mettle to the 4000 Dutch soldiers and 1500 British and Indian soldiers killed by Indonesians during war of independence, plus 150 British and Commonwealth soldiers killed by Indonesian soldiers during Konfrontasi?

BTW yes East Timor is a failed state: the poorest country in the world, half of its army just deserted, its police abuse human rights regularly, and its poverty/illiteracy/infant mortality rates the highest in Asia.

Indonesia is much better-off without East Timor (no more subsidies burden), East Timor is much worse-off without Indonesia.

Perseus,

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to dismiss fundamental human rights without which we would all be living in caves eating roots and freezing our backsides off in some forgotten part of Europe. What I meant was that you're assuming that human rights means people in Sulawesi or NTT or some other part of Indonesia would gain human rights advances by succeding from Indonesia. This is nonsense since they have not expressed this desire.

I lived in Indonesia for nine years so I'm trying to be an honest broker here avoiding the extremes of this chauvinist guy PTBI (no offense, your knowledge of history is excellent and so you do the best posts on this website) and some looney Aussie who learnt about Indosesia from a WeetBix box, or worse still, from Dick Woolcott's mob who would sell us all off before you could mutter the words "Schapelle Corby".

That was a good debate sparked off by my article, thank you to all contributors. As some noted, I sit somewhere in the middle of this argument. I am neither an Indonesia-lobby appeaser nor an anti-Indonesian polemicist. But I do know that this was a time to draw a clear line in the sand and stick to it. We are paying the price for not doing so.

By the way, has anybody noticed ? Many Papuans died a few days ago in suspicious circumstances in a boat that was sunk off Jayapura while attempting to fee to nearby PNG. It allegedly collided with a speedboat , or was struck by a wave- the news stories (in ABC and Fairfax news - see Google) vary. According to an unconnected article in the well-informed Indonesian news magazine Tempo (cited by Crikey), six Indonesian warships are now patrolling off the coast of West Papua in efforts to deter/turn back refugee boats attempting to leave West Papua. Go figure how this boat sank.

Tony Kevin

I see your point Rogindon, but I am trying not to assume anything. My point about human rights is that the West Papuans were never given a full, free and fair, act of free choice. And it seems, the Javanese at independence were in no mood to actually ask all the other provinces of the then Dutch East Indies if they wanted to be part of one entity or not.

And the issue of a Javanese Empire does not go away because the more compliant provinces have their own leadership in place. I understand the biblical King Herrod was a palestinian who ruled a palestinian court but there is absolutely zero room for doubt that 2006 years ago Palestine was part of the Roman Empire.

Rest assured, if the rest of Indonesia was firmly in bed, as it were, with the Javanese then there would be no sign at all of the shrill responses we are currently seeing from Djakarta and our mate PTBI. Leaders of secessionist movements that have no support base very rarely get strangled in mysterious circumstances. There would be no need to do such a thing.

The Indonesian elite know better than most how tenuous the bonds are that tie that country together. The virulence of their response to any mention of secessionism, either internal or external, tells us a great deal about what they really know about the situation.

And the fact that you could spend 9 years in the country without any exposure to secessionist sentiment is no surprise. Most of those 9 years would have had to be prior to democratisation. That is, when it was a police/military state. And there is little doubt that as far as secessionism goes, it still is. For those who are benefiting from the system, any mention of this taboo subject, in any form but the official line, would mean the kiss of death to any career.

Clearly, in some parts of Indonesia, it may even be the literal kiss of death.

Perseus,
I spent two weeks in West Papua in 2000 and, yes, I can tell you for a fact that successionist sentiment was extremely strong. In fact, there was only one native Papuan whom I spoke to who suggested that Papuans should focus on economic development rather than independence. The rest were pro-independence. But Papua is only one province among more than 30. I also spent 4 months in North Sulawesi in 2003. This province is 3 hours flight by commercial jet aircraft from Jakarta and predominantly non-Muslim. When Jakarta passed a Bill on National Education that was seen to favour Muslims, student groups and even some members of the provincial legislature threatened to break away from Indonesia. But this was largely just bluster to stress their opposition to the Bill. I have travelled to every province of Indonesia, mostly post-1998, and the only places where I believe there are serious independence movements are Aceh and West Papua. Remember the Indonesian language is not Javanese and many Javanese cannot even speak Indonesian properly. President Sukarno's mother, and hence President Megawati's (2001-04) grandmother was Balinese and President Habibie (1998-99) was born and raised in South Sulawesi.

Thanks, Rogindon. I knew but had forgotten that Javanese was not the Indonesian language. And I agree that many provinces are very much a part of the Indonesian whole. To promote their secession would not only be pointless but futile.

I guess the term "Javanese Empire" would be akin to using a term like "English Empire" instead of "British Empire", when we know that much of the colonial activity was carried out by Scots, Welsh, Ulstermen and often, ironically, Irish. But the fact remained that it was, essentially, dominated by the English, as any Welsh or Scottish nationalist will confirm.

In any event, I doubt that many West Papuans would bother with finer distinctions. The presence of others amongst their persecutors would not diminish the fact that most, on the simple balance of probability, will be Javanese.

That is also borne out by the money trail. The extraordinary growth of Djakarta in a country with such low average incomes and widespread population makes it very clear that resources are being concentrated by the system in one place. That is, after all, what a Capital does best. And it is not surprising that provinces on the outer might tend to wonder where their share of the supposed single pie has gone.

History has continually proven that the large unitary state with minimal autonomy for token provincial governance is unsustainable. And Djakarta is busily demonstrating this all over again. Federal systems have demonstrated the capacity to deliver more evenly distributed engines of growth but that, as I continue to stress, is not our call. It is up to those Indonesians who actually want to be part of Indonesia to decide.

In 1998-99, there was a notable discourse in Indonesian politics on the issue of federalism. The change to a federal structure was particularly supported by Amien Rais who went on to be chair of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) the country's supreme legislative body from 1999 to 2004. Eventually, however, Indonesia opted for decentralisation (through Laws No. 22 and 25 of 1999) rather than fully-blown federalism. These laws significantly decentralise important decision-making to the provinces and sub-provincial districts as well as providing for more equitable distribution of revenue from forestry, mining etc.

If we want to talk about the distribution of Indonesian national wealth among ethnic groups, I'd say the Chinese get a much bigger share even in absolute terms than do the Javanese. The Javanese do not necesarily dominate all walks of life. For instance, the private legal profession is more dominated by Bataks from North Sumatra than Javanese. It has been pointed out that the ethnic group with arguably the least prominance in national life relative to population are the Sundanese. They number in the tens of millions living all around West Java right near the national capital, but relatively few reach positions of national importance for some reason.

@tonykevin:

Your clearly anti-Indonesian speculative babble made rubbish of your claim to be an "impartial observer".

@Perseus:

LOL, it is hilarious someone whose knowledge of Indonesia only come from a WeetBix box trying to teach about Indonesia to someone who actually has been living in Indonesia for years. What do you know about Indonesia? Clearly nothing as your fantasies bear no relation with reality whatsoever.

I think Indonesia is far too complex of a country for simple-minded hillbilly like you to understand. I suggest you not exhaust your brain, instead think of simpler things in life more suited for capacity of your mind, such as AFL, NRL, or BB06.

Sorry, Rogindon, but your point about the Bataks and Sundanese does not refute the notion of a Javanese Empire. The British Empire was no less an empire because the Cockneys, within the capital, were under represented in positions of power. Nor did the presence of Indian Princes in the sub-continent, nor Chinese traders in Malaya, detract from the fact that it was the British Empire. Indeed, it has been the hallmark of all successful empires, at least since Alexander of Macedon, that locals have been given access to positions of influence within the dominant structure.

And tell me, PTBI, do you support the right of Moslems in the south of Thailand to aggitate for independence from the central government? Surely, if the West Papuans have no right to secede then neither the southern Thai Moslems nor those of Mindanao have this right as well. Can you clarify this for us all?

This "Javanese empire" idea is a myth from decades ago and just plays right into the hands of those who would have us say nothing and do nothing over human rights abuse in Papua. They argue that if we say "boo", West Papua will become independent and the whole of Indonesia will disintegrate. This is fantasy. Even if Papua were to become independent (which I'm not advocating), this would be a big blow to Indonesia, but it certainly wouldn't lead to Indonesia disintegrating anymore than East Timor's succession led to Indonesia disintegrating in 1999. I disgree with PBTI on the extent of human right abuse in Papua, but I think there are valid arguments that he makes about Papuans on the Indonesian side of the border being saved from some of the excesses of alcohol and other problems on the eastern side.

@Perseus:

LOL, I don't really care about Thailand's Pattani Malays or Mindanao people. For me, the separatists in these area have too much links with Islamic terrorists, eg Mindanao is the training ground for terrorists who bombed Bali. It is better these separatists got defeated if possible.

Rogindon, I agree that the secession of West Papua would not result in the total break up of Indonesia. That is the Djakarta equivalent of the old "domino theory". Clearly, much of the country is fully part of the whole and would remain that way.

But you appear to be arguing that the potential adverse consequences that would result from the existence of a "Javanese Empire" are sufficient grounds for concluding that it does not exist. And that is not logical. It will take more than one or two generations to convert Javanese dominance into Indonesian unity, especially when this is combined with human rights abuse and political oppression.

And if PTBI is a representative sample of the Indonesian "man in the street", then it is very clear that Australia's interest would be best served by a rump Java and a number of independent nations. However, I doubt that he is representative of anything but the frothing fringe.

The fact is that Australia is spending a $billion over 5 years to maintain Indonesian unity. The simple withdrawal of those kinds of funds could be enough to change conditions sufficiently to see the removal of the current administration and its replacement by a far more unreasonable one that would exacerbate secessionist sentiment. It would be harder to deal with in the short term but hasten a more favourable outcome in the long term.

And if PTBI and his ultra-nationalist mates really want to see what it would be like if Australia was actively undermining Indonesian unity then they should get their tiny heads around the sort of mischief that could be created with $200 million a year for guns, explosives and training.

Perseus,
It's 2006 - not 1956. Do you think it's still the Cold War times or the gun-boat diplomacy era? Australia doesn't have much influence over Indonesia. Soeharto was once sought to have said that he feared only one country and that was the US. The US is the only single country that could influence political change in Indonesia (which it did at critical turning points like 1949, 1965-66 and 1998-99) and that was an uphill battle to say the least.

Sorry Rogindon, you appear to have a fairly rudimentary understanding of the nuances of statecraft. The tools are a lot more subtle than in the past but are no less effective. Without our $billion in aid the Indonesian economy would be sorely stretched in recovering from the Tsunami. It was a big enough hit to place the rest of the national economy under serious stress. The flow through into the employment and small business sector, especially in times of rising oil prices, would have meant that the current administration would be travelling no-where near as well as they are at present. Discontent would rise and a government would change. It would have all the appearance of a locally determined change but be far from it.

The simple withdrawal of goodwill can be a powerful weapon. And it must be said that PTBI has certainly done his best to undermine the mountain of goodwill that still exists in Australia towards our neighbour.

Perseus,
The nature of the Indonesian bureacracy means that it is almost impossible to transfer $1 billion in aid quickly without most of it going to line the pockets of already wealthy bureaucrats and private contractors. If AusAID has policies in place against corruption of aid monies, then very little of this money will have been dispersed by now.

@Perseus:

LOL, don't exaggerate the influenece of tsunami on Indonesian economy. In fact, the only province hit by the tsunami, Aceh, made-up less than 1% of overall Indonesian economy. Even then, the most important economic infrastructure in Aceh, the LNG plant in North Aceh and oil fields of East Aceh, was untouched by the tsunami since the hardest-hit areas are Aceh's western coast. Hence, the tsunami has hardly any impact on Indonesian economy. Saying that without your puny Australian aid, Indonesian govt would "collapse" is so far off it is hilarious. Seems like again, your brain is too simple to understand the complexities of Indonesia, old-boy Perseus

PTBI, “Saying that without your puny Australian aid….”

Wouldn’t it have been nice if you had said something like; “Saying that without Australia’s very generous and much-welcomed aid….”

But no, despite the enormous effort that Australia has put towards alleviating the suffering in Aceh, which amounts to much more that the $billion in terms of people on the ground and organisation assistance, you cannot find it within yourself to pass a compliment, let alone a neutral statement.

You are a billion miles away from having a balanced perspective.

The essence of your post makes eminent sense, but I and presumably all other readers cannot take it at face value while you make such biased and hateful statements about Australia. We have to suspect that any statement you make could be strongly biased, disguised within the expression of a good knowledge of your country.

You are doing yourself a great injustice with your grossly ‘undiplomatic’ style ….. considering of course that you desire sensible debate and are not just simply trying to stir up conflict.

If you make stupid comments, you get ridiculed. That is just cause-and-effect :-)

Ah, so that is why people ridicule you left-right and centre.

Oh well, if it pleases you to write superficial unintelligent responses that don’t address the issues, then so be it.

@Ludwig:

It seems you have very short memory span, let me summarise the dialogue in this particular subject:

WRITER: Indonesia should not intervene in Australian visa decision.

ME: Indonesia don't want to intervene in Australian affairs, we merely wants to guarantee our security.

PERSEUS: Australia is very influential in Indonesia, and should support the destruction of Australia.

ME: Australia has no influence in Indonesia and Australia has no capability to destroy Indonesia.

PERSEUS: Australia has lots of influence in Indonesia, without Aussie aid Indonesian economy and govt would collapse.

ME: The tsunami has no impact on Indonesian economy, and Australian aid is not so important as Perseus imagined.

It is clear I am the one who make the best and most sensible posts, while Aussie posters like Perseus made the most ridicilous posts.

Then perhaps PTBI should start a campaign to hand the money back or stop it getting through in the first place. That would be one thing we could all agree on.

^^ LOL, what is wrong, Perseus? Shocked that Indonesians do not feel intimidated by your puny threats? That is why you should never attempt to use aid as weapon to bully and threaten another country. It'll never work.

PTBI

[in response to your post of 29 April]

So you are saying that because one Australian – Perseus – put some stuff to you that you didn’t think was right, it has given you the excuse to knock even the very best of Australian positivity towards Indonesia (“….your puny Australian aid…”).

Even if every person you are ‘debating’ with on this forum was really offensive and biased, it would not give you an excuse to be the same. You don’t have a clue about diplomacy, or how a lack of diplomacy has all but destroyed your credibility.

If you can call a $billion in aid plus an enormous on-ground assistance effort puny, then you obviously don’t have a single nice word for Australia and are biased to the absolute extreme.

The fact is, you genuinely think that Australia’s aid effort is puny and that Australia could not do a thing right as far as Indonesia is concerned, other than staying completely and utterly our of Indonesia’s affairs. Is this right? Can you give a simple yes or no answer to this question?

And how about an answer to my previous straight question from the ‘We’re too desperate to please Jakarta’ thread, asked now four times – “is it your intention to stir up strife on this forum, which will filter into other areas and increase polarisation and conflict between our countries?”

I assume that your complete lack of response means that this is indeed your primary motive.

@Ludwig:

You are correct, the best thing for Australia to do is to stay utterly out of Indonesia's affairs. It is proven Australia is far too immature and childish to have any position of international responsibility. No wonder USA and UK is only ever consider you as mere stooge.

And yes, Indonesia of course is thankful for all foreign aid during tsunami. In fact, our president SBY came to Australia to convey this gratitude. However, had we known the immature Australians would demand our life and limbs as exchange for this puny aid, we would have refused Australian "aid".

We don't really need your aid, during the tsunami almost every country help us out. USA send a whole US Navy battlegroup (2 aircraft-carriers and one hospital ship), Russia, China, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Singapore, France, and Britain send larger contingents than Australia. Not to mention there are thousands of Indonesian soldiers doing humanitarian work in Aceh.

So, stop praising yourself for your insignificant contribution. Get out of Indonesian affairs! There is nothing that will improve Indonesian trust towards Australia other than Australia minding its own business.

Oh dear PTBI

You seem to be partaking in half-reasonable debate on the “We’re too desperate to please Jakarta” thread, but maintaining your silly extremism here.

Australia should have EVERY right in the world to try to influence Indonesian policy, and vice versa. This is the very essence of a healthy bilateral relationship. I TOTALLY reject your hardline insistence that we should stay completely out of your affairs.

What are you attempting to do with your very presence on this forum? Yes, that’s right – influence Australian policy.

“And yes, Indonesia of course is thankful for all foreign aid during tsunami. In fact, our president SBY came to Australia to convey this gratitude.”

Well, I will be amazed. Careful, this is cutting awfully close to acknowledging something good about Australia!

Oh, and thankyou for confirming by your lack of response for the fourth time, that it is indeed your intention to stir up strife on this forum, which will filter into other areas and increase polarisation and conflict between our countries.

@ludwig:

LOL, you're so naive. Are you saying if Australia want to have good relations with Democratic Republic of the Congo, you'll need to give the Congolese a say in Australian domestic affairs?

Too bad, Australia is so economically and politically impotent you'll never have and never will have any influence in Indonesian affairs. We, however, have political clout, so our govt can influence your govt to change Australian immigration policy.

“Are you saying if Australia want to have good relations with Democratic Republic of the Congo, you'll need to give the Congolese a say in Australian domestic affairs?”

YES. Absolutely PTBI. Congo should be able to express any concerns it may have with Australian policy, whether or not it has anything to do with the Congo, and expect Australia to listen. Whether Australia makes any changes to policy as a result is entirely up to the Australian government. That sort of communication is the essence of good relations. How on earth can you have good relations with a country if you can’t entertain that basic sort of communication?

I fail to see why you find it so repulsive that Australia can have ANY conversation with Indonesia and influence in its affairs. You are just completely off-track with this concept. Again, you are having an input into Australian affairs via this forum. So your whole notion is not only crazy, but you are being quite hypocritical about it.

Anyway, now that your intention to cause strife is absolutely confirmed, I won’t be having any further communication with you.

Unfortunately ludwig, most Australians are saying Indonesians CANNOT influence Australian internal affairs, while Australia MUST influence Indonesian affairs. Just read the article we're discussing. This type of arrogant attitude from a weakling neighbour is not acceptable for Indonesia.