I'm sick of all the quasi-political threads on this site

There has been an extremely nasty repression in the province since Indonesia conquered the territory. The Indonesians are shipping in colonists from other Indonesian islands by the tens of thousands. It is illegal to call for the independence of the region and there are constant reports of police and military violence in the region. We don't here anything about this in the us. Obvious reasons are that the us doesn't involve itself much in Indonesian affairs and Indonesian policies of neutrality in regards to foreign powers. In other words this isn't an Iran that we want to wag our finger at for human rights abuses.

I was wondering if other nations outside of Oceania receive news about this conflict. It has piqued my interest.

Chaqa sucks at diplomacy AND he doesn't like politics.

I don't mind politics, but if you want to talk about it go to a politics website.

Or could you still just be butthurt about your in game temper tantrum earlier this week...

Likely

What a surprise, Santa supports Dutch manufactured separatism in Indonesia - the Kuwait of the East Indies.

The Papuans have a completely different ethnicity, language, culture and history than the Indonesians. How is their movement, for which they are dying, Dutch manufactured?

Set myself up for this next one. Yes Indonesia is a collection of wmethicities, yet is that an excuse for killing members of one constituent group that wants nothing to do with the state, even if they are a minority?

I can't fathom Indonesia's claim over Papua either.

Putin I gather you think West Papua should be part of Indonesia. Why?

Indonesia is a multinational state, so appeals to ethnicity and language as a basis for separatism is a non-starter. Indonesia is the legal successor to the territories of the Netherlands East Indies (NEI). West Papua was never administered as a separate entity under the NEI. When the Dutch decolonized Indonesia, they clung on to the control of West Papua, thus first separating it from Indonesia, violating previously held bilateral agreements between Indonesia and the Dutch regarding the territory which would comprise the Indonesian state.

West Papua has no leg to stand on when it comes to independence. This has been a Dutch manufactured conflict with the Dutch instigating and supporting Papuan nationalism.

"Indonesia is a multinational state"

Isn't that just another way of saying that Indonesia is an empire? Like the Austro-Hungarian Empire was. Or the Russian Empire, or the British Empire.

By your argument should Britain have maintained its rule over Ireland or Indian even?

When you have a situation where one ethnicity rules another against their consent. At one point is the dominated ethnicity entitled to self-determination.

typo... at *what point is the dominated ethnicity entitled to self-determination?

"...West Papua has no leg to stand on when it comes to independence."

Yes. Once the White Men draw the lines on their map you're stuck with them ad perpetuum, Third Worlders. Get over it already!

Why is Indonesia exempt from your hatred of imperial power Putin when quite obviously this is an instance of brutal enforcement of imperial control?

"Yes. Once the White Men draw the lines on their map you're stuck with them ad perpetuum, Third Worlders. Get over it already!"

The "Third Worlders" are the ones who over and over again insist on the colonial boundaries being inviolable. Look at the litany of resolutions passed by the OAU, OAS, and other organizations on that very point. Destabilizing borders for wanton separatism has led to fiascos in the "Third World" - see the ongoing conflict within South Sudan for starters.

"Isn't that just another way of saying that Indonesia is an empire? Like the Austro-Hungarian Empire was. Or the Russian Empire, or the British Empire."

No. Is Nigeria an Empire? Is Burkina Faso? Is South Africa? Is the DRC? Is Myanmar?

Why does every country have to be mono-cultural and mono-ethnic in order to not be an empire?

"By your argument should Britain have maintained its rule over Ireland or Indian even?"

No. Your argument is classic divide-and-rule - the same logic that got us the bloody partitions of India and Ireland. Set the colonized against each other and insist on their need for separate national homelands.

"When you have a situation where one ethnicity rules another against their consent. At one point is the dominated ethnicity entitled to self-determination."

When separation is agreed upon among all parties involved - as in the case of South Sudan.

"Why is Indonesia exempt from your hatred of imperial power Putin when quite obviously this is an instance of brutal enforcement of imperial control?"

I already explained why. Because this is part of a divide-and-rule plot to insist on separate national homelands in order to undermine the national unity of decolonized states. And because post-colonial entities recovering control of their own territory are not "empires".

Why does Indonesia get singled out by you when there are obvious parallels between this and Israel, down to the accusations of sending settlers? Because Indonesia is Muslim?

Let me put it this way, and I honestly am interested in your answer Putin. You obviously believe the Dutch were unlawful owners of west papua. Why is the Indonesian claim, based solely on the Dutch claim, any better?

We won't even go into the violrnt repression of any expression of a desire fore independence.

"When separation is agreed upon among all parties involved - as in the case of South Sudan."

Is this a moral argument or a practical argument? I can possibly conceive of a situation where the ruled ethnicity might not be ready for self-determination (and maybe this true for West Papua -- I don't know).

But if you have a situation, where for historical reasons one national group has ruled another national group, primarily for the advantage of the ruling group, and to determent of the ruled, surely the dominated group has a moral right to independence.

Going back to Ireland. I don't really understand your response. Britain ruled Ireland for centuries. Why was Ireland entitled to independence? Since you said the rule is this "When separation is agreed upon among all parties involved"

Are you arguing that if Britain had not agreed to separation, then Ireland had no moral right to independence.

Last time I read there weren't allegations of systematic sexual violence by security forces in Israel, and if I wanted to pick on a Muslim baddy because of my hopelessy prejudiced jewish mind, why would I pick one of the few that is on good terms with Israel?

It's not "better" or worse. It's what was agreed upon. All territories are at some level "unlawfully held". If we went by that standard, we'd never have stable territorial relations anywhere. Delimitations based on agreement are the only basis by which to have stable territorial relations and avoid constant territorial disputes.

" Delimitations based on agreement are the only basis by which to have stable territorial relations and avoid constant territorial disputes. "

I see your point here Putin. It get's messy in a lot of the worlds regions. Nigeria is a good example.

typo.. it *gets messy...

"Last time I read there weren't allegations of systematic sexual violence by security forces in Israel"

There are plenty of other allegations of abuse and Palestinians don't want to be part of the state, so why aren't you preaching in favor of Palestinian independence?

"Muslim baddy because of my hopelessy prejudiced jewish mind, why would I pick one of the few that is on good terms with Israel?"

I recall from my studies of Singapore that Indonesia rioted when the Israeli ambassador visited the city-state in the 1980s. If Indonesia has good relations with Israel this is news to me, esp. since they have no diplomatic relations.

"Is this a moral argument or a practical argument?"

Practical, although it quickly becomes moral as limitless separatism is a recipe for limitless civil war.

"But if you have a situation, where for historical reasons one national group has ruled another national group, primarily for the advantage of the ruling group, and to determent of the ruled, surely the dominated group has a moral right to independence.
"

If so then they should use diplomatic pressure to force the "dominant group" to accede to their demands.

"Why was Ireland entitled to independence?"

No one is "entitled" to independence.

"Are you arguing that if Britain had not agreed to separation, then Ireland had no moral right to independence."

No legal right, yes.

"I recall from my studies of Singapore that Indonesia rioted when the Israeli ambassador visited the city-state in the 1980s. If Indonesia has good relations with Israel this is news to me, esp. since they have no diplomatic relations. "

No formal diplomatic ties but unlike other Muslim nations they do have ties below outside of the formal diplomatic realm

Thank you Putin. Now I understand where you are coming from.

I still think it is possible to simultaneously agree that a region has no legal right to independence, and still support the cause of independence because you believe that it is in the best interests of the subjugated people to be independent.

Or simply not support the brutal violent repression of any expression of a dedire of independence...

Very good point Santa!

Yes I agree that is possible.

Although hopefully one considers the best interests of the wider region as well.

And to party putins impending anti-Israel thrust I will make this comparison. If you drive through Arab sections of Israel you can and will se Palestinian flags. They are not illegal. On the other hand the proposed west Papuan flag is completely illegal to fly in west papua and Indonesian police violently repress gatherings where the flag is raised.

It's not an 'anti-Israel thrust'. Israel has every reason to be fearful of Palestinian independence. To make this claim though that Indonesia is somehow behaving badly while Israel is not is just rank hypocrisy.

So thinking about West Papua then. Let's say we acknowledge Indonesia's *legal* right to rule West Papua (at least for argument's sake). Maybe these are the questions:

1. Is it is West Papua's best interest to be ruled by Indonesia. And how long is this rule to last for. Is it a protectorate situation that will end someday when the Papuan's are ready. Or does Indonesia now own West Papua, and has full rights to extract Papua's resources entirely for the advantage of the Indonesian's (really this means the Javanese).

2. How is it in Indonesia's best interest to govern Papua. And does this interest trump the interests of the West Papuans.

I never made that claim. I do feel however that this continuous crackdown is amoung the worlds most brutal yet least covered (in the us at least)

For 2.

It is rich in resources and it provides a frontier for Indonesian population, hundreds of thousands of Indonesians have migrated there supported by the government.

You're sitting here calling Indonesia an "empire" and ridiculing any legal claim Indonesia has to the territory, so yes you're making a special case against Indonesia that you're not willing to make elsewhere, under the dubious pretense that Indonesia is uniquely repressive of independence.

"Maybe these are the questions:"

Those are loaded questions.

" it provides a frontier for Indonesian population"

See: West Bank

"hundreds of thousands of Indonesians have migrated there supported by the government."

See; West Bank.

"It is rich in resources"

The reason we're even talking about this, and why W. Papua even has a separate existence.

A teaching moment for Putin.

The Jewish population of the West Bank settlements is 15000. In about the same period one Million Indonesian migrants. ONE MILLION. Have migrated to west Papua and Papua, Indonesia. So no, not quite West Bank.

Excuse me 350000 in West Bank, my mistake.

"You're sitting here calling Indonesia an "empire" and ridiculing any legal claim Indonesia has to the territory, "

I have already granted you that point. Let's move on from the legality.

"Those are loaded questions."

Not necessarily. You could make an argument that the Javanese have a kind of manifest destiny over the region (just like the USA did in North America, or the Russians did in Eurasia). Or that they need the living space. After all Java possibly over-populated.

Or you could argue that West Papua simply could not rule itself. And that the Indonesians in fact bring peace and stability to the region as well as opportunities for development, that the Papuans could never provide for themselves.

What other question are more pertinent and less loaded than the interests of the peoples we are discussing?

I guess we should send in the Marines and conquer Indonesia and since they are lacking we can rape the land for precious hardwoods and import 12 year old hookers for Santa and Putin by the bootload.

"A teaching moment for Putin."

Some teaching moment.

W. Papua doesn't even contain 1 million people in total, let alone 1 million Javanese 'settlers'. But why let a little thing like numbers get in the way of your need to bash some random country while making excuses for the very same behavior elsewhere. And considering Israel's tiny population compared to Indonesia's, 350,000 settlers (a total which is about half the population of W. Papua by itself) is a good deal 'worse' than any number you could come up with to bash Indonesia.

"I have already granted you that point. Let's move on from the legality."

That first comment was directed at Santa. Sorry for the confusion.

"Or you could argue that West Papua simply could not rule itself."

Yes that could be argued, but that's not how you worded the original questions at all.

"Or does Indonesia now own West Papua, and has full rights to extract Papua's resources entirely for the advantage of the Indonesian's (really this means the Javanese)."

That's how you worded it, entirely loaded against Indonesian rule as being *entirely* exploitative.

"What other question are more pertinent and less loaded than the interests of the peoples we are discussing?"

Those questions you recently added are better. Also, issues of precedent and regional stability, as well as international law.

Nevermind, evidently there are two W. Papuas - one is an administrative unit created fairly recently, the other used to refer to all of Indonesian New Guinea. The population of the latter is close to 3 million. The population of the former is 750,000.

This reminds me of the situation with China and Tibet. Tibet is a massive sparsely populated province, but with a tiny population. Any migration whatsoever of other groups in a crowded country to a sparse province is criticized.