The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Protecting our national interests? > Comments

Protecting our national interests? : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 5/5/2006

The pervasive, self-perpetuating, pro-Jakarta mindset in our international relations bureaucracy has become a canker on the Australian body politic.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. All
West Papua is a former Dutch colony. In 1949, when Indonesia gained its independence, the Dutch retained control of West Papua. During the next decade, West Papua prepared for its own independence, a move supported by Australia.

But the process was interrupted when Indonesia, using Russian military equipment, launched a small-scale invasion of West Papua. The United States, worried that Indonesia might have been slipping towards Communism, arranged for a UN-brokered agreement between Dutch and Indonesian governments, which handed West Papua to Indonesia. The UN's condition was that there was to be a UN-supervised referendum, called the "Act of Free Choice."

Or, if you're West Papuan, you might refer to it as the "Act of No Choice."

The vote occurred in 1969 and the "No Choice" name is well deserved.

What happened was that less than one per cent of the population - 1022 tribal elders - were rounded up, and they were basically told to vote for Indonesia or they would have their tongues cut out." Obviously then the vote was unanimous for West Papua remaining with Indonesia.

In the years since Indonesia's occupation of West Papua, there are estimates that around 100,000 people have died due to human rights abuses. The Javanese invaders are raping the environment polluting and if you remember the saying “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

It's time for Australia and Australians to get involved, just as we did in East Timor. West Papua's an issue whose time has come. It's the type of situation where people initially might not know too much about it. Some people don't even realise that it's just over 100 kilometres from Australia's shores.

When people do hear about what's happening there, they're often quite shocked that this is something that's going on right on our doorstep. This is an issue that has the potential to ignite huge sectors of the populations to stand up for West Papuans, just as Australians did for the East Timorese.
Posted by Kekenidika, Sunday, 7 May 2006 9:39:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,

But surely human rights are the underlying issue here. If HR violations are so bad that many Papuans are eligible for asylum, can we refuse? Of course the preferred option is to pressure the Indonesian government into improving HR in the provinces than getting a huge inflow of refugees.

Realistically if the Indonesian government can't keep pirates out of the straights and the Australian navy can't stop poachers stealing our fish, I seriously doubt that they can stop boat people from reaching our shores.

If we look at Papua in the context of the war on terror, it becomes clear that no one wants to antagonise a fledgeling islamic democracy in he western camp. The cold war is full of precedents where HR were ignored in the "war on communism". BBY is no fool and is milking it to his advantage.
Posted by gusi, Sunday, 7 May 2006 12:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe the Indons and Australians are doing a very public sparring match while behind the scenes , a very different dance is going on.
If the Australian government is kowtowing to Indonesia because of the fear of the fundamentalists perhaps it would be better to withdraw any funds to the Indons and let the fundamentalists do their damnedness.
Then Indonesia will show which side of the fence they are sitting on and we will know who the real enemy is.
While the foreign fishing fleets invade our waters and the Bali murderers are sitting pretty,Indonesia is not our friend nor should it be treated as one.
Posted by mickijo, Sunday, 7 May 2006 3:02:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gusi

Of course human rights are a major concern. That is why we need a full-on diplomatic effort. But as explained previously, we have to be very careful indeed about how we deal with the issue as it pertains to West Papua.

One positive sign is the attempts by US Congressman Eni Faleomavaega to impress on his government and on the UN the need to revisit the sham of the 1969 ‘Act of free choice’ referendum and make sure that the West Papuans have an unintimidated opportunity to vote for independence or Indonesian rule (or Australian or PNG rule?), and to impress upon Indonesia that powerful international forces are indeed watching and expressing great concern over what is happening in Papua.

Australia should strongly support this initiative, as well as stepping up diplomatic discussions with Indonesia.

“If HR violations are so bad that many Papuans are eligible for asylum, can we refuse?”

That’s a hell of a difficult question. I would say, no, we couldn’t refuse if it came to the crunch. But again, where do you draw the line between accommodating those who really need it, without triggering a mass exodus? How would we facilitate the escape of the needy without encouraging thousands of others to leave who would probably be better off staying in their homeland rather than going into a long period of limbo in a foreign land? And how would we do it in a manner that the vast majority would think was fair?

If a large-scale accommodation of refugees did become necessary, Australia should push very solidly for many other countries to take their share, and we should offset our intake by reducing immigration proportionally. They should be accommodated temporarily, and repatriated when it is safe
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 7 May 2006 9:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the question of Australia taking West Papuan Refugees ......
Of course, if it comes to the point where there IS a mass exodus because of ongoing repression by Indonesia where diplomatic efforts to curb the violence by TNI and militias have been ignored, We must offer refuge.
However,if the violence ceases and the peoples aspirations for the promised autonomy are honoured, there will not be a mass exodus.
The correct course for Australia is to put a stop to the Jakarta lobby's kow tow and do some straight talking tied to trade embargos and withdrawal of military aid.
If the repression does not stop a UN peace keeping force and UN review of the Act of No Choice should be implemented forthwith.
Such a strategy will in fact strengthen the hand of SBY if he is fairdinkum about wresting control of the military and placing it under the control of the Government.
Posted by maracas, Sunday, 7 May 2006 10:38:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thing about the Jakarta Lobby is that it doesn't matter who is in government in Jakarta. It doesn't matter if it's Soeharto or one of the post-reformasi administrations. It also doesn't matter whether the victims of Jakarta Lobby decision-making are Australians, Indonesians, Timorese, or others. Even if the victims are Australian military personel like Lance Collins, it still doesn't matter to them. It doesn't matter if it's a human rights issue like the current Papuan asylum issue or consular (eg. Schapelle Corby, Michelle Leslie, Bali Nine). The only thing you can be absolutely certain of is that the Australian agency making the decision willl defer to what they think is in the interest of the Jakarta elite. No one would argue that the Jakarta Lobby originated at DFAT, but would it be fair to say that it also extends to Defence (see the way Lance Collins and Toohey were treated), ONA, the Department of Parliamentary Services and large chunks of the media (eg. Andrew Bolt). If we want to be serious in this discussion, let's get real specific because it's Australia's interest at stake.
Posted by rogindon, Monday, 8 May 2006 3:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy