Tony would say that I am wrong to believe that most Australians wouldn’t give a thought to the agreement – him being right all the time – but I’ll say it anyway.

I’m delighted that the fiasco of West Papuans entering Australia illegally and dancing around their flag here after being granted TPV’s has been addressed. And I’m sure that Australians do not have to concern themselves with any other aspects of the agreement. That’s what politicians are for. Foreign policy, as Tony should know, is a matter strictly for elected government and their advisors. Not the rest of us.

Tony is no fool. He has held responsible positions. But, when it comes to gauging what Joe Public thinks, he is out of his depth. He also suffers from that touch of arrogance, which always ensues when people of his ‘class’ start lecturing we plebeians. Does he really think, for instance, that Australians would be happy if Indonesia did withdraw its cooperation in the prevention of huge numbers of illegal entrants arriving in their country? Does he really think that most Australians outside his immediate circle and those who always go public with their open border nonsense really sympathise with the 42 renegades who dumped themselves on us? He probably does, but only because he has never got down and dirty like the rest of us.

Our government, bungling though it might be and, currently, lurching from one hopeless plan to another on ‘climate change’ rather than things far more real and important to Australia, has not sacrificed human rights in West Papua by signing the agreement. Human rights in West Papua are something to be thrashed out internally. They have nothing to do with Australia. Our rapidly tyring government (read past-it PM) has got this one right

"But, when it comes to gauging what Joe Public thinks, he is out of his depth."

But Tony is an eternal optimist. He thinks humanity is worth saving in the long run. That means putting his neck on the block.

There is no greater threat to Australia's or Indonesia's security than lying politicians. As time goes on, all their efforts are consumed by the need to maintain the facade. Lies have a voracious appetite. We are seeing this now. The effort to reconcile past secrets with present "realities" would be a comedy if it wasn't so damned tragic.

Leigh seems to have killed debate stone dead with his heavyhanded intervention minutes after my piece went up last Friday. As usual, Leigh missed the main point of my piece with his left-right pigeonholing. Take his rhetorical question:

"Does he Tony Kevin) really think, for instance, that Australians would be happy if Indonesia did withdraw its cooperation in the prevention of huge numbers of illegal entrants arriving in their country?"

Of course I don't think that. But the possibility my paper raised - something I went into in far more detail in a speech I gave at ANU on 15 November, which I hope somebody will be brave enough to publish - is the interesting possibility that some senior serving or retired Indonesian national security people may have facilitated the upsurge of Middle Eastern origin people smuggling through Indonesia between 1999-2001 as retaliation for East Timor's secession. Now what does Leigh think of that proposition? It certainly puts a different light on the "happiness" we Australians should feel at Indonesian government cooperation since 2002, does it not?

And what do others think ? Is anyone prepared to debate the merits of this proposition?

@tony kevin:

Your "propositon" sounds like paranoid mumbo-jumbo. What it shows is your extreme anti-Indonesian fanaticism and disgraceful ingratitude for Indonesia's kind and benevolent willingness to take action on Australian concerns out of our naive intention to be good neighbour.

Little did we know that when dealing with a little, dumb, ingrate, and racist "country" like Australia, being good neighbour is impossible.

i can't imagine trusting howard and downer to get anything right.

leigh should be careful in saying that foreign policy is too hard for us plebs- even if we are not wiser than politicians, we are at least trying to profit our nation. politicians must concentrate on getting elected, a different thing entirely.

indonesia has little to offer australia, and perhaps vice versa. we don't need a treaty of military co-operation, nor do they. unless, that is, one is getting ready to invade the other, and a treaty will stop it?

this is just another secret deal, done between politicians for political advantage within their respective countries. like the amusingly mis-named "free-trade" agreement with the usa, howard seeks to 'manage' the electorate into blindly putting his mob back into power.

meanwhile, australia slides down the path to environmental disaster, undertakes military and police roles around the world which will end in making us violently unpopular, and cloaks the government's corrupt machinations in secrecy.

if the australian electorate were capable of effective assesment of their government, there would be revolution. fortunately for the politician's guild, the electorate evolved from the same society as the pollies, and is equally incompetent.

These days, "Proud to be Indonesian" has become a parody of himself/herself. I suspect he/she may be as Indonesian as Borat is Kazakh. PTBI might well be a cute role-play by an Australian with an anti-Indonesian axe to grind and a peculiar sense of humour. Ah, the joys of internet anonymity !

Anyway, PTBI, here are a few names to think about. Alatas. Wiranto. Kopassus. Abu Quassey. Kevin Enniss. Mick Keelty. And read my book on SIEV X.

Anyway, PTBI, who was worse? - Those who instigated the Middle Eastern people smuggling trade through Indonesia or those who tried to disrupt it - by methods that possibly included disabling and sinking boats and thereby risking innocent human lives ? I don't think I am being anti-Indonesian or weird - I am just asking fact-based questions about the conduct of both countries' security agencies or rogue elements within those agencies. This is not an anti-Indonesian discussion, at least from my end of it.

"PTBI might well be a cute role-play by an Australian with an anti-Indonesian axe to grind and a peculiar sense of humour."

LOL, is this another of your paranoid mumbo-jumbo? Don't worry, tony kevin, I am not Borat, I am as Indonesian as "Emperor Nasi Goreng".

"Anyway, PTBI, who was worse? - Those who instigated the Middle Eastern people smuggling trade through Indonesia or those who tried to disrupt it"

LOL, the only people to blame for the refugee problem is the warring factions in the messed-up part of the world called Middle East. Their actions turned that place into such a hell-hole that millions of its inhabitants desperately seek refuge anywhere else in the world, particularly Europe and USA. Australia is not even a big destination for these peoples.

Your constant illogical attempt to scapegoat Indonesia for the appearance of refugees produced by Middle Eastern conflicts beyond anyone's control just shows that OLO does not keep any quality standards, since they allow unqualified writers to post the most non-sensical articles with no factual contents whatsoever.

PTBI , I still think you may be an Australian pretending to be a extreme nationalist Indonesian – you are so close to parody at times. Maybe your aim is to make gullible Australians deride such attitudes. The only way to prove me wrong is to out yourself with a verifiable identity. I do not fear to fight my battles under my own name.

You say my article was not based on facts. These are facts:

1. Middle Eastern people smuggling numbers (DIMA fact-sheets) exploded from 39 in 1998 to over 4000 in 2000, over 4000 in 2001, and then collapsed again to virtually nothing in 2002. People-moving industries through a sovereign country do not appear and disappear in this abrupt way without powerful help. You have cited the standard Australian government line that the trade was purely demand –driven from the Middle East. This fails the laugh test. This trade, in order to exist, had to be sheltered and fostered by powerful people with connections to government and TNI resources in Indonesia. The same people helped closed it down at the end of 2001.

2. Yudhoyono and Wirayuda were clearly threatening on reputable media in March 2006 that if Australia did not toe the line on the PNG boat people issue, we could expect a revival of people smuggling through Indonesia. What clearer hint can there be of the connections I am suggesting?

3. Abu Quassey – front organiser of the doomed SIEV X voyage – was clearly (many media references, both in my book and since) protected by powerful Indonesian police and military figures and agencies before, during and after that tragedy.

4. The paltry profits from people smuggling – 4000 people per year at a (media-reports generated – analysed in my book) average of US$1000 per person is only $4 million p a. You don’t bribe a whole country’s police force and navy to look the other way with that kind of small change – there has to be a policy decision by powerful people somewhere in there, to make or let this trade happen. (continues)

(Part 2 of 2 parts).
There are many other supportive facts suggesting Indonesian high-level complicity in “people smuggling” through Indonesia in 1999-2001, and Australian government determination to oppose this covertly, by calling it a “people smuggling” criminality issue rather than an Australia - Indonesia relations issue. Our media fell for our government’s spin hook line and sinker, and the strategy worked. By forcing Jakarta to define the trade as “the organized crime of people smuggling”, pressure was built on the Jakarta government to do something. Then, the shock of SIEV X (however the sinking was caused), was the circuit-breaker that ended “people smuggling” from Indonesia to Australia.

PTBI, - or should I say Borat II? - tell us who you really are. Then we can debate this on OLO

@tony kevin:

LOL, don't you know what happened in Indonesia at the year 1998? It was the year when Suharto fell from power, causing general weakening of govt, including the laxing of immigration controls.

The fall of Suharto allowed thousands of Middle Eastern people to enter Indonesia illegally, some proceeding to Australia. Heck, even Al-Qaeda's number two man Ayman Zawahiri managed to enter and exit Indonesia without passing through immigration.

It was in 2001, with the restoration of govt control of incoming aliens, that the influx of Middle Eastern illegals into Indonesia was cut to zero since almost all undocumented entrants got caught by Indonesian police. And this basically eliminated Middle Eastern boat people problem in Australia cuz the refugees couldn't enter or pass through Indonesia.

PTRBI, your argument here is unconvincing: "general weakening of government, including lax immigration controls, after Soeharto fell in 1998". It is just too pat - how come there were only 39 Middle Eastern origin asylum-seekers in 1998 and 4000 two years later in 2000 and 2001 and back to almost zero again in 2002 ? To blame it all on three weak presidents Habibie, Wahid and Megawati letting immigration controls go slack to this extent allowing a demand-driven surge just isn't credible. I am convinced there was a policy thrust in there from powerful people in Indonesia who had an axe to grind against Australia and the power to facilitate this traffic. It remains the most credible explanation for what happened.

I notice you have not yet declared who you are. Until you do, I doubt that you are Indonesiun at all.

@ tony kevin:

LOL, yet another paranoid anti-Indonesian accusation based on mumbo-jumbo.

Truth is, Indonesian leaders won't bother "smuggling people" to Australia. Why would they want to do such a thing? How does the boat people serve as "revenge" for East Timor.

Fact is, the boat people episode is merely a minor byproduct of the fall of Suharto and general weakeneing of Indonesian govt and immigration services in 1998-2001. It's just an unintended sideshow, really.

The end of the boat-people episode is also a minor byproduct of the Indonesian immigration control recovery of 2001-2002 under Megawati. That's also an unintended sideshow.

The dynamics of this issue has nothing to do with Australia, really. Too bad, your book contains nothing but misinformation. I don't think it will sell well.

PTBI, You are still not teling us who you are - and keep avoiding my challenge to do so.

If you will not say who you are - if you really are "Proud to be Indonesian" - at least try to give us a spin WHY you won't say who you are. Otherwise we must conclude you are an Australian amusing himself/herself with a false Indonesian identity - as real as Sacha Cohen's (AKA Borat's ) Kazakh identity.

BTW, my book sold 3500 copies, won two Australian prizes and is in its second printing. But you pronably know that already.

Your "arguments" that people smuggling in 1999-2001 had no high-level support in Indonesia remain weak. There are none so blind as prefer not to see.