Indonesian Leader Deplores Statement by Aussie PM

[coma]

Now the government of Australia will know if Pak Bambang is having nasi goreng or mee rebus for lunch before the president knows!! Alamak!!!

I have it from my ASIS source in Jakata that he like noodles more than rice.

[chooka]

Now the government of Australia will know if Pak Bambang is having nasi goreng or mee rebus for lunch before the president knows!! Alamak!!!

I have it from my ASIS source in Jakata that he like noodles more than rice.

With Australian beef of course.

[GrantSmith]

Apparently Abbot is drafting a formal letter of apology for Indonesia.

Do you have a source ?

ABC News this morning on the Australia Network.

Don't believe he's penning an apology, moreso a response to if/when he receives one from SBY...

[MK1]

You would think that INDONESIA would respect the 1951 UN convention by allowing refuges to settle permanently in their country of first asylum but we know who gains the most financially by duck-shoving them along to the next country. Had Indonesia respected Australia’s sovereignty in the first place then this problem would have not arisen.

Edited November 21, 2013 by MK1

[GrantSmith]

I don't think Indonesia is their preferred destination for asylum...

[simple1]

So with Indonesia withdrawing co operation on people smuggling, military and intelligence how is this going to effect the sinking boats. Normally it was the Australian Navy who goes to their rescue even in Indonesian waters. If these boats sink in Indonesian waters I presume they blame will be laid squarely on Australia because of the spying incident and the cut in co operation. Indonesia will take no responsibility.

The withdrawal is currently termed as temporary; do not believe that at this stage Indonesia has formally withdrawn from the Bali Process.

Indonesia has consistently stated that it views asylum seekers / refugees as in transit, as it is not a source country, so from a policy view not their responsibility. However, the Bali Process is an endeavour to put in place a more responsible policy from the Indonesian government. The Indonesian Ambassador to Australia stated in May this year that his government does not support nor will cooperate with a push back the boats policy, this position has not changed.

Edited November 21, 2013 by simple1

[simple1]

You would think that INDONESIA would respect the 1951 UN convention by allowing refuges to settle permanently in their country of first asylum but we know who gains the most financially by duck-shoving them along to the next country. Had Indonesia respected Australia’s sovereignty in the first place then this problem would have not arisen.

Indonesia is not a signatory to the UN Convention for Refugees, so does not meet the criteria of 'country of first asylum'. As stated above Indonesia views asylum seekers / refugees as in transit, as it is not a source country, from a policy view not their responsibility.

[samran]

Now the government of Australia will know if Pak Bambang is having nasi goreng or mee rebus for lunch before the president knows!! Alamak!!!

he prefers a light salad. Doctors orders...

[David48]

Apparently Abbot is drafting a formal letter of apology for Indonesia.

Do you have a source ?

What was actually said was ...

Tony Abbott has vowed to do "everything I reasonably can" to repair relations with Indonesia after receiving a promised letter from Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

"I want to assure the House that the government will respond swiftly, fully and courteously to the President's letter".

[coma]

Kicking right off out the front of the AUSTEMB Jakarta. One Indonesian 'gentleman' leading a group of protesters stated "Within 24 hours, if the Australian government does not apologise, we're ready to attack this place. We're ready to (target) Australians."

Where as the much more level headed Mr Abbott said he would respond to the letter he received from Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who has sought an official apology and a full explanation as to why Australian spies targeted his mobile phone, as well as those of his wife and some of his closest confidants, in 2009.

Edited November 21, 2013 by coma

[MK1]

You would think that INDONESIA would respect the 1951 UN convention by allowing refuges to settle permanently in their country of first asylum but we know who gains the most financially by duck-shoving them along to the next country. Had Indonesia respected Australia’s sovereignty in the first place then this problem would have not arisen.

Indonesia is not a signatory to the UN Convention for Refugees, so does not meet the criteria of 'country of first asylum'. As stated above Indonesia views asylum seekers / refugees as in transit, as it is not a source country, from a policy view not their responsibility.

'

This still does not exclude the fact that SBY has ‘two-faces have I’ when comes to policy making with Australia.

Edited November 21, 2013 by MK1

[simple1]

You would think that INDONESIA would respect the 1951 UN convention by allowing refuges to settle permanently in their country of first asylum but we know who gains the most financially by duck-shoving them along to the next country. Had Indonesia respected Australia’s sovereignty in the first place then this problem would have not arisen.

Indonesia is not a signatory to the UN Convention for Refugees, so does not meet the criteria of 'country of first asylum'. As stated above Indonesia views asylum seekers / refugees as in transit, as it is not a source country, from a policy view not their responsibility.

'

This still does not exclude the fact that SBY has ‘two-faces have I’ when comes to policy making with Australia.

Examples where policy agreements have been broken by SBY, prior to current tensions?

[David48]

Didn't know here or the Refugee thread ... covers so many issues ...

.

[Chris Lawrence]

The real problem that happened was Tony Abbott would not let the Indonesian Press corp into a news conference. What a conceited pric! Everything was fine until then; the Indonesians new of the phone taps, but there pres is now fueling the fire. Imagine if you excluded the Thai Press on home soil. Abbott has got holes in his feet over this one.

Just tonight on the ABC news, big Tony's adviser gave a narcissistic opinion on what is now happening. Which he is probably not far off the mark, but uou just don't say it in public or tweet as this man did.

Abbott as the Prime Minister needs to show good decision making skills as a diplomat. Has not got to the plate yet.

[MK1]

You would think that INDONESIA would respect the 1951 UN convention by allowing refuges to settle permanently in their country of first asylum but we know who gains the most financially by duck-shoving them along to the next country. Had Indonesia respected Australia’s sovereignty in the first place then this problem would have not arisen.

Indonesia is not a signatory to the UN Convention for Refugees, so does not meet the criteria of 'country of first asylum'. As stated above Indonesia views asylum seekers / refugees as in transit, as it is not a source country, from a policy view not their responsibility.

'

This still does not exclude the fact that SBY has ‘two-faces have I’ when comes to policy making with Australia.

Examples where policy agreements have been broken by SBY, prior to current tensions?

1. Failed to co-operate in preventing or reducing the flow of asylum seekers ( Now It’s 10 fold).
2. Failed to co-operate in preventing, reducing or eliminating the activity of People smugglers as per the 2002 ‘Bali process’ agreement.
3. Failure to cooperate on accepting the return of 63 refugees rescued in the search and rescue zone.
4. Failure to adhere to 2006 Lombok treaty with respect to West Papua…SBY spat the dummy in the same way too, back then, and as a result threaten Australia to abandon co-operation on guess what…”people smuggling” !

Looks like SBY has delivered on the threat in the end.

Edited November 21, 2013 by MK1

[samran]

Very pleased to see PM Tony Abbott showing some leadership and holding his ground. This incident did not occur on his watch.

I can only imagine what Kevin Dudd's response would have been if he was still in office. Straight down on his knees, licking the dog poo off SBY's shoes.

nah mate, as Opposition leader, Tone would have been on, or one of his senior leuitenants, would have been on the committee which meets in secret but oversees national security.

Ole Tone is in on this one as much as ego maniac Rudd was.

And he can't trott out his daughters to calm this one over.

...on second thoughts...

Edited November 21, 2013 by samran

[Scott]

A topic with an inappropriate name for a politician has been deleted. Also, an off-topic post has been deleted.

[chooka]

They are burning Australian flags and screaming death to infidels and at the same time holding their hand out saying were is that 600 million in aid.

I say if you want that 600 million then eat this.....................

[simple1]

They are burning Australian flags and screaming death to infidels and at the same time holding their hand out saying were is that 600 million in aid.

I say if you want that 600 million then eat this.....................

It will be Indonesian security forces dealing with any protesters; for sure they will be monitoring the leaders. As mentioned before in this topic, Indonesia has been successful, with support from Australia & others, in supressing Islamic extremists with more than 800 arrested/killed & currently 600+ convicted. I guess you would know AFP, with permission from Indonesia, has about 30 officers based in Indonesia working on people-smuggling and counter-terrorism.

Australia is offering aid, Indonesia is not "holding out their hand". There are a number of strategic reasons why it is to Australia's advantage to provide aid, if interested you can look it up on the DFAT website.

[simple1]

This still does not exclude the fact that SBY has ‘two-faces have I’ when comes to policy making with Australia.

Examples where policy agreements have been broken by SBY, prior to current tensions?

1. Failed to co-operate in preventing, reducing or eliminating the activity of People smugglers as per the 2002 ‘Bali process’ agreement.
2. Failure to cooperate o
3. Failed to co-operate in preventing or reducing the flow of asylum seekers ( Now It’s 10 fold).
4. n accepting the return of 63 refugees rescued in the search and rescue zone.
5. Failure to adhere to 2006 Lombok treaty with respect to West Papua…SBY spat the dummy in the same way too, back then, and as a result threaten Australia to abandon co-operation on guess what…”people smuggling” !

Looks like SBY has delivered on the threat in the end.

An alternate POV...

1. Failed to co-operate in preventing or reducing the flow of asylum seekers ( Now It’s 10 fold).

For a start it would not be in Indonesian national interest to host refugees / asylum seekers on their territory. Don’t know the details, but I assume most arrive by air. Even in Australia, until the upsurge in boat people, the large majority also arrived by air & then declared themselves as refugees. Australia is still unable to stop this means of entry, so why do you expect Indonesia can do so? To be fair in 07/2013 the government did agree to a proposal by the Australian government to subject Iranian request for visas to more scrutiny.

UNHCR states that mid 2013 there were 8,623 registered, with another 2072 granted refugee status in Indonesia. Note that refugees are not permitted to work so this would be a push factor. Endemic corruption in Indonesia, so would be extremely difficult to stop people smuggling (same scenario in Thailand). Previously Australia was only granting 50 per year entry to Australia; this calendar year increased to 542. More detail on the numbers and other proposed initiatives by Indonesia at the URL below.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/indonesias-bid-to-put-10000-refugees-on-isle/story-fn9hm1gu-1226724090344#

1. Failed to co-operate in preventing, reducing or eliminating the activity of People smugglers as per the 2002 ‘Bali process’ agreement.

I agree with the analysis in the SMH article below.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/bali-process-grinds-on-with-no-sign-of-results-20130404-2h7yz.html

1. Failure to cooperate on accepting the return of 63 refugees rescued in the search and rescue zone.

Political decision as annoyed with Australian megaphone diplomacy; in other words f%# off gesture.

1. Failure to adhere to 2006 Lombok treaty with respect to West Papua…SBY spat the dummy in the same way too, back then, and as a result threaten Australia to abandon co-operation on guess what…”people smuggling” !

Australia had agreed to hand over to Indonesia any West Papuan refugees that might land in Australia; this agreement was in direct conflict with international human rights agreements; under pressure Australia reneged on this aspect of the agreement. Also treaty’s clause 2.3 seemed to commit the Australian Government to preventing anybody in Australia from ‘encouraging’ separatism in Indonesia, again this agreement was reversed by Australia. As you point out Indonesia then spat the dummy.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2008/03/07/The-Lombok-Treaty-Devil-in-the-detail.aspx

Edited November 21, 2013 by simple1

[David48]

INDONESIA says it doesn't spy on Australia; but it did once, according to a former Indonesian intelligence chief.

abdullah-mahmud-hendropriyono

Referring to an earlier time ... retiring Indonesian intelligence chief General Abdullah Mahmud Hendropriyono said his agency tapped Australian civil and military communications and politicians' phone calls.

It also made unsuccessful attempts to recruit Australian spies, he said.

General Hendropriyono, who headed the Badan Intelijen Negara under president Megawati Soekarnoputri's government, said it was well known both sides tapped each other's communications during the East Timor crisis.

General Hendropriyono said he presumed Australia did the same thing to Indonesia. "She is silly if she doesn't do that, you know."

The Australian

[GrantSmith]

SBY looking for more than an apology..

Hahaha this guy, SBY...

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Crushdepth]

Not that long ago, Indonesian troops were trying to kill their Australian counterparts in East Timor.

[simple1]

Not that long ago, Indonesian troops were trying to kill their Australian counterparts in East Timor.

For many years Australia supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975 as well as the US Administration, due to Cold War politics (over time approx 180k East Timorse deaths). Australia/USA continued to supply weapons and provide political backing to Indonesia. Australia along with 22 other countries, including Thailand, sent peace keeping troops after the declaration of independence in 1999 and the resultant violence, as you say peace keeping forces were threatened by Indonesian nationalist militia, supported by politicians/military.

Amongst other considerations, you could be cynical & have the opinion that Australia supported Indonesia in order to access and profit from the energy resources via the Timor Gap Treaty. Some claim that to date the Australian government continues to screw the East Timorse Government over the resources and revenue sharing.

Edited November 22, 2013 by simple1

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[David48]

Some claim that to date the Australian government continues to screw the East Timorse Government over the resources and revenue sharing.

They are a distant voice ...

International treaties define who has access to what.

Are you saying that Australia is in contravention of this?

If so ... please factual quotes and references please ... not opinion pieces.

So I can show my mettle ...

2007       International Unitisation Agreement on Sunrise (IUA)            and Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the            Timor Sea (CMATS) comes into force.                 The IUA established that only 20 percent of the            Greater Sunrise fields fall in the JPDA and allots            80 percent of the Greater Sunrise fields to            Australia. Under IUA, East Timor would have received            only around 18 percent of revenues from Sunrise            fields.                 CMATS splits the revenue from the Sunrise fields            50-50 and implements a gag rule that prevents            Australia and East Timor from discussing their            disputed maritime boundary. 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/timor-australia-gas-idUKL4N0GS1CT20130830

So the International Unitisation Agreement on Sunrise (IUA) establishes that only 20% of the Sunrise resources and grants 80% to Australia.

But then Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea (CMATS) splits the revenue from the Sunrise fields 50-50 and implements a gag rule that prevents Australia and East Timor from discussing their disputed maritime boundary.

Just quietly ... a more then fair punt towards Indonesia. But no ... Indonesia is still not happy ...

How is this relevant to the OP?

 April      East Timor files for arbitration, alleging that 2013       Australia engaged in espionage during negotiations            for CMATS, making the treaty invalid. Australia will            not confirm or deny the allegations, but has said            the accusation is not new.

So, they didn't like the decision and call foul.

.

[Scott]

The situation between Australia and East Timor is getting off-topic.

[simple1]

Some claim that to date the Australian government continues to screw the East Timorse Government over the resources and revenue sharing.

They are a distant voice ...

International treaties define who has access to what.

Are you saying that Australia is in contravention of this?

If so ... please factual quotes and references please ... not opinion pieces.

So I can show my mettle ...

2007       International Unitisation Agreement on Sunrise (IUA)            and Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the            Timor Sea (CMATS) comes into force.                 The IUA established that only 20 percent of the            Greater Sunrise fields fall in the JPDA and allots            80 percent of the Greater Sunrise fields to            Australia. Under IUA, East Timor would have received            only around 18 percent of revenues from Sunrise            fields.                 CMATS splits the revenue from the Sunrise fields            50-50 and implements a gag rule that prevents            Australia and East Timor from discussing their            disputed maritime boundary. 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/timor-australia-gas-idUKL4N0GS1CT20130830

So the International Unitisation Agreement on Sunrise (IUA) establishes that only 20% of the Sunrise resources and grants 80% to Australia.

But then Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea (CMATS) splits the revenue from the Sunrise fields 50-50 and implements a gag rule that prevents Australia and East Timor from discussing their disputed maritime boundary.

Just quietly ... a more then fair punt towards Indonesia. But no ... Indonesia is still not happy ...

How is this relevant to the OP?

 April      East Timor files for arbitration, alleging that 2013       Australia engaged in espionage during negotiations            for CMATS, making the treaty invalid. Australia will            not confirm or deny the allegations, but has said            the accusation is not new.

So, they didn't like the decision and call foul.

.

If Scott will permit one last post on this issue?

Yep, an agreement was put in place as East Timor was desperate for the revenue. It is not an opinion, but a fact that during negotiations the Australian government forced upon East Timor a 50 year stop on negotiations on the East Timor maritime boundaries. If more energy resources are located in the disputed area it will be a huge lost revenue opportunity for East Timor; that's why some have accused Australia of bullying and flexing their regional muscle to the disadvantage of a poor regional neighbour

[Scott]

Thanks, and now I think we can get back to the topic.

[Sing_Sling]

Me thinks Indonesia will stand to lose more than Australia will. If the Australian government doesn't go soft. I remember Australia giving $1 billion dollars in aid after the tsunami. And aid is always ongoing in a one way direction. Hope Abbot cuts the ambilicle cord.

As for ceasing military and intel cooperation... well I think Australia has bigger brothers to rely on than Indonesia in this field. Furthermore Australian SASR trains Indonesia's entire SF group Kopassus. Last year Australia gifted Indonesia 4 C130 aircraft etc etc etc etc......

So you're saying we shouldn't give aid to millions of people struck by disaster unless their government does everything we say? Nice . . .

They are burning Australian flags and screaming death to infidels and at the same time holding their hand out saying were is that 600 million in aid.

I say if you want that 600 million then eat this.....................

Your hyperbols is humorous