@Kraken:

The entire Indonesian people is united with Indonesian government and military in our determination to crush all forms of separatism. Indonesian unity and integrity is the most cherised Indonesian value that we will defend to our last drop of blood.

Who the hell do you think you are saying Australia has right to dictate us in our internal affairs, while Indonesian cannot do the same with Australian internal policies? Rest assured, as far as Indonesians are concerned, we value opinion of puny Australians as much as handful of dust.

@Perseus:

LOL Australia's core values is NOT human rights, but genocidal white supremacy, as shown by your theft of Aboriginal land, your murder of Aborigines, destruction of Aboriginal culture, and kidnapping of Aboriginal children. Indonesians know this barbaric genocide well and we are familiar with your "White Australia Policy", Indonesians will be laughing wildly if Australians try to pretend to be "human-rights defender".

With the dark history of cruel white oppression of Aborigines' human-rights and your racist "White Australia Policy", for Australia to talk about "human-rights" is absurd to the maximum.

"Core Democracies"........

I have to smile a knowing smile here.. and a cynical one. The 'core democracies' are founded on brutality and abuse and exploitation.

Now..suddenly, from their ivory tower, and the comfort provided by the blood sweat and tears of underprivileged, downtrodden former colonial subjects, or.. those who had "treaties" imposed on them like the Chinese, to force them to accept Opium from the British Crown in cahoots with the Sasoon family, ...now.. they have the leasure to consider what is good for the world in terms of 'human rights'.

If there was such a thing, and people were serious about it, they would try to right every identifiable wrong and repent as Zachaeus did when Jesus came along "Look Lord, to those I have defrauded, I restore fourfold"....

The criminal nature of the UN members who came up with 'Human Rights' is that they are just like an 'unrepentant Zachaeus' doing nothing in terms of restoration, and then suddenly coming up with a plan for TAX REFORM. For those uninformed about the story in the New Testament, Zachaeus was a corrupt tax collector for Rome in Israel.

I'll start supporting the UN on Human Rights when I see many of the sins of history being reversed.

Failing that, they can go take a running jump, we will work things our as we like, and determine to be in our best interests.

Gusi, it is a win-win-win situation because;

1. Australia SHOULD maintain very tight border control. Strongly discouraging people from coming here outside of our formal immigration program is an imperative of the highest order. We can and are doing this while still respecting the 1951 Refugee Convention: making sure asylum seekers are treated humanely, get fair and reasonable assessment of their cases and get asylum where found to be genuine.

2. Indonesia SHOULD be a close ally of Australia in this regard. We do need to be very mindful of what they desire and strive for the best of bilateral relations.

3. West Papuans should most definitely NOT be given the impression that they can sail to Australia and just get asylum. It is better for them if they realise that this door is firmly closed, and that any attempt on their part will result on offshore processing, a period in a detention centre and residence most probably somewhere other than Australia, if their claims are found to be true. This is nothing against the West Papuans. I believe that they are suffering real suppression by the Indonesian authorities, but the way for Australia to deal with this is through diplomacy, not by opening our borders. We don’t want a lot of desperate Papuans held up in detention centres. Australia has been through that ugly scenario. It must be avoided. Similarly, I’m sure West Papuans don’t want to be held up in detention centres. But we simply cannot provide asylum for them, without corrupting our necessarily tight border-protection policies, and fracturing relations with Indonesia.

It is extremely difficult to find the right balance between various aspects of this issue. For example, what is the best balance between still providing some sort of vehicle for West Papuans to seek asylum if they feel they really need to, but not risk leading to a large-scale exodus? And the most difficult of all; how do we maintain good Indonesian relations while doing something meaningful about West Papua?

Leigh

I agree that the granting of temporary protection visas for 42 Papuans was really unfortunate, because it stepped right outside of our tight process for dealing with such matters, and should surely have been perceived as a threat to Indonesian relations. That’s nothing against the 42 people involved.

“On the matter of illegal entrants/asylum seekers, there is no Australian policy. The policy comes from the UN, and if our government is kowtowing to anyone, it is to the UN.”

The policy was formulated by the UN, and Australia continues to respect that, as it should. But we most definitely have our own policy on how to handle the situation, while still upholding the Refugee Convention rules.

Australia is not kowtowing to the UN. It is MOST important that we respect the UN, and respect the rights and desperation of refugees. However, as should be the case with all international bilateral relations, we should be actively lobbying the UN on matters that we feel need changing. One of those has surely got to be the open-ended nature of the refugee convention, in which there is no limit to how many people a country is obligated to take.

“If the Howard Government had any backbone, it would tell the United Nations where to go, and what to do with its policies.”

No. I can’t agree with that.

PTBI says:

"For all the past vicious insults done by Australia on Indonesia's dignity, Australia deserved to be insulted every day every second by Indonesians to make it even. Only by the infliction of good amount of corporal punishment, can Australians learn to improve its behaviour towards Indonesia."

If by "corporal punishment" PTBI means "war" then he or she should say so. If not, he/she should say just what is meant. This kind of intemperate and provocative language is exactly what neither country needs right now. International relations is not about "making it even" (returning insult for insult, injury for injury). It is about learning to live with neighbours who will not go away, no matter how much one wishes they would.

PTBI should note Australia's (and the columnist's) support for Indon. sovereignty in W. Papua. Memo 1: don't bite the hand that is extended in support. Memo 2: PTBI should do a refresher course in written English.

@Mhoram:

"If by "corporal punishment" PTBI means "war" then he or she should say so."

LOL, it is hilarious for you to interpret my comment as "war". War is an option Indonesia should take if Australia decided to directly challenge Indonesian unity and integrity or disturb our security. For now, war is not a suitable punishment for Australia's offences.

I approve current Indonesian government's decision to openly rebuke Australia for any of its internal decisions that adversely affect Indonesian interests. Indonesian govt should also actively counter every anti-Indonesian campaign of lies and distortion of truth from Australian media. And Indonesia must actively fight the enemies of Indonesia living in Australian midst as listed by our Parliamentary Commission (incl Bob Brown, Natasha Stott-Despoja, Duncan Kerr, etc) as these individuals actively seek the destruction of Indonesia.

As for your "support" of West Papuan integrity in Indonesia, the truth is you have no other choice as this unity is a fait accompli as acknowledged by two UN resolutions and the entire world community. Australia has no choice but to acknowledge West Papua as integration part of Indonesia, just as Indonesia has no choice but to acknowledge Tasmania as integral part of Australia.