@rogindon:

LOL, your comments suggests that the separatists are somehow a peaceful movement. How about the lives of many Indonesian men, women, and children who were butchered by the violent separatists? You don't care about them? Their lives don't matter for you? How dare you call yourself a "balanced person"?

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES BY PAPUAN SEPARATISTS:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/papuan062404.htm
http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/1996/03/13/0055.html
http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/2000/10/07/0013.html

Seems like the barbaric separatists don't care about human rights. Those Australians who support separatists directly promotes human rights abuses on Indonesian citizens! Indonesian govt will never allow barbaric Papuan separatists from murdering more Indonesian citizens!

@daeron:
LOL, you are very bad liar. Population growth of 8% per year? LOL, even the highest population growth in the world today never pass 3.5% p/a. Your propaganda lies are so far out they're easily busted, you fool.

@TheAlchemist:

I am not a Muslim, ignorant fool. Your speculations are spurious and indicate that your knowledge on Indonesia only came from WeetBix box.

1) Transmigrants in East Timor are very small due to limited economic opportunities in that ex-province, never reaching 5% of the population. Almost all went back to Indonesia in 1999, before the 2000 census was taken.

2) The 1.5 million population figure for Papua only countes native Papuans. Overall, there were 2.8 million people in Papua province in 2000. The 1.3 million difference are transmigrants.

3) Sorry mate, Allied soldiers who expelled the Japanese from West Papua are US soldiers under direct control of General MacArthur who moved his HQ from Brisbane to Hollandia (now Jayapura) in 1944. There might be a few Australians posted there as American auxillaries, but by then the combat was long over.

4) Indonesia is NOT an Islamic country. It is based on secular Pancasila nationalist ideology. In fact, Indonesia had crushed two violent rebellions by Islamists to establish Islamic law in Indonesia (DI-TII and Komando Jihad rebellions) whereby the respective "imam" rebel leaders met their end in front of the firing squad.

Here's a link showing the free lifestyle enjoyed by Indonesian girls:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8772&st=2320

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/6.html

Actually Leigh, the above case is one you and mickjo and others should read carefully when considering the case of the Papuans.

In this case Australia tried to deny status to Russian Jews because they could have gone to Israel. You will note that Kirby makes a nonsense of the entire third country notion. The family were here, they didn't want to be in Israel and we had no right to say they should be there.

That applies to West Papuans as well. As to my grandfather being a liar - why on earth are you worried about that, he lied about his age and nothing else - in the second case to spend 6 years defending Australia. Wow. If everyone who ever lied about their age got such censure we would be in trouble.

I was born early in 1953 and I don't lie about anything.

Leigh, you say that asylum seekers arriving by plane:

"are treated the same way as the illegal entrants, once their visas have expired, so there is little difference in the end. One group is just shiftier and more blatantly dishonest than the other."

This is completely wrong. Asylum seekers arriving by boat are put in detention, and under the new rules will not be allowed to stay in Australia, even if they are found to be refugees. Asylum seekers arriving by plane, provided they apply for refugee status within certain time limits are given temporary visas and allowed to stay in the community, access medicare and work. Do you seriously suggest that detention on Christmas Island and freedom in the Australian community are the same thing?

Also, why on earth do you (presumably) think that asylum seekers arriving by boat are less trustworthy? I think you will find that MORE such arrivals are ultimately successful than those who arrive by plane, who are often overseas students from places such as Bangladesh who would simple rather stay here.

Leigh,

Given your interest, you might like to know something about how asylum seeker's claims are processed in Australia.

People who arrive by plane, with correct short term visas (such as a tourist visa) often make claims for a protection visa. If they do so within 45 days of arriving, they will be granted a Bridging Visa A, and have medicare and the right to work while their claim is processed. They live in the community with dignity.

Compare this with people who arrive by boat, or otherwise without any documentation. If released from detention, they are given a Bridging Visa E, and not allowed to work (even volunteer), do not have access to Medicare, or any social service. Without certain charitable organisations, they would starve on the streets.

Despite this, people arriving here by boat are much more likely to be genuine refugees than those arriving here by plane with a visa. And yet we treat the first group much more kindly. Why is this? Because the Government sees it as politically advantageous to beat up on "boat people".

I'm not suggesting that we should be tougher on asylum seekers who arrive with documents - far from it. But I do think that distinction helps us to reflect on what is actually driving the Government's policies.

The Government's proposed changes to the processing of claims are a whole other issue. The most disturbing part of the proposal is that even people assessed as genuine refugees will not be allowed to resettle in Australia. That is a policy which implicitly supports governments who persecute their citizens. What message does it send when we say we will not accept people who have fled persecution? It says that we are indifferent to that persecution. That is not good enough if we want to live in a society, and a world, that is free, democratic, and respects the rule of law.

PTBI,
The population of East Timor has never exceeded 1 million.

Leigh,
Dick Woolcott learnt his Indonesia skills in 1974. I learnt them in 1998. For years, Woolcott went on and on about how East Timor could never become independent and now we are expected to just buy his sophisry on West Papua?

Dick Woolcott wrote in 1996: "it would be misguided to expect rapid change or serious instability in the near future" in Indonesia and that the next president of Indonesia after Soeharto would be a Javanese Muslim with a military background. There was, of course, very serious instability and rapid change very soon after Woolcott wrote those words and the next president, consistent with the plurality of Indonesian society, was a civilian scientist from Sulawesi. So why should we respect Woolcott's opinions?

Very good point, Rogindon. Wollcott's grubby mits are all over Australia's disgraceful policy towards East Timor. For most of the time in question he had the primary inputs into foreign policy. He was the man in the drivers seat. He was the one assuring all and sundry that he had it all worked out. All he is doing now is a rather pathetic attempt to wipe the blood from his place in history.