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.