australian navy violates Indonesian waters, Indonesia demands end to Australian provocations

[jhungary]

If lots of people started flooding the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, the Australians would ask the Indonesians to stop those people. Protection of a diplomatic enclave is the joint responsibility between the host country and the foreign country.

There is no such situation in the open seas. Indonesia has no legitimate cause to stop people entering Australian territory.

First, I have click send by accident, I had not finished my post.

Secondly, you can apply in letter, you don't need to go to the embassy or consulate directly...

By the way, even at the height of the crisis, it's only 14,000 per year, you are telling me Australia Consulate in Jakarta cannot handle 14,000 people extra per year? That's comes down to 38 more per day, have you gone to the DIAC office inSydney?

 

[nufix]

So if Indonesia don't want them and you just pass them to Australia? Guess what, last time I check, Indonesia is a signatory in UNHCR too, so it's your responsibility as well as the Aussie

Care to cite the source? Because according to this:
Indonesia — Asylum Insight
and this:
UNHCR - States Parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol
and this:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...policyinstructions/apis/unhcr.pdf?view=Binary

Indonesia is not a signatory of UNHCR although Indonesia opens up cooperation with UNHCR. Thus making Indonesia free from any responsibility of taking care of these foreign refugees. In contrast to Indonesia, Australia is one of the state parties in both of Convention and Protocol, why did Australia signed that UNHCR thingies if Australia wouldn't do that? It's like trying to gain attention as savior, but in the end, signed papers are only signed papers.

 

[katarabhumi]

Dude, the process of a refugee is not up to any particular country, they are processed by UNHCR and there are no requirement for any country to take the refugee, the only rules in place is the world need to take 0.1% of processed refugee a year

If I remember correctly, before the nahru deal, the Australian government were in talk with Indonesian to build camp and financed by Australian government to temporary hold the refugee. But Indonesia said no.

Plus Indonesian government can deport them back to their original location, or send them to a third country like we do with Narhu now...

So if Indonesia don't want them and you just pass them to Australia? Guess what, last time I check, Indonesia is a signatory in UNHCR too, so it's your responsibility as well as the Aussie

Simplest of all.. They don't want Indonesia, they want Australia from the very beginning.. that is why we pass them to you. They don't want us, we don't want them.. naturally it is bad for a relationship, so we can't take them in, let alone indefinitely.

Send them anywhere but Australia.. but where? who would take them?.. Indonesia doesn't have the agreement with anyone to pass over asylum seekers.
Send them back to their original country is also not an option.. these people more likely branded as traitors in their original country and will face prosecution if they return.

So the only option for us is send them to where they want.

And.. the last time I check, Indonesia is still NOT a signatory in UNHCR.

.

 

[jhungary]

Care to cite the source? Because according to this:
Indonesia — Asylum Insight
and this:
UNHCR - States Parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol
and this:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...policyinstructions/apis/unhcr.pdf?view=Binary

Indonesia is not a signatory of UNHCR although Indonesia opens up cooperation with UNHCR. Thus making Indonesia free from any responsibility of taking care of these foreign refugees. In contrast to Indonesia, Australia is one of the state parties in both of Convention and Protocol, why did Australia signed that UNHCR thingies if Australia wouldn't do that? It's like trying to gain attention as savior, but in the end, signed papers are only signed papers.

Dude, not talking about the protocol, they define refugee status and the country that accept the refugee, if you look at my post, I never say Indonesia should accept the refugee, tho I did question why the asylum seeker does not apply asylum in Indonesia

What I was saying is the signatory of UNHCR establishment itself, which allow a legal entry to Indonesia for refugee process, a thing Indonesia did back in 1970s- 1990s to process the Vietnam refugee.

The same does not applied to current refugee but rather dumping the problem to Australia

Dude, think, if a refugee sue Indonesian government in ICJ for negligence for allowing them to leave their soil with foreknowledge of non seaworthy boat. I honestly think that refugee would have a chance winning the case

Simplest of all.. They don't want Indonesia, they want Australia from the very beginning.. that is why we pass them to you. They don't want us, we don't want them.. naturally it is bad for a relationship, so we can't take them in, let alone indefinitely.

Send them anywhere but Australia.. but where? who would take them?.. Indonesia doesn't have the agreement with anyone to pass over asylum seekers.
Send them back to their original country is also not an option.. these people more likely branded as traitors in their original country and will face prosecution if they return.

So the only option for us is send them to where they want.

And.. the last time I check, Indonesia is still NOT a signatory in UNHCR.

.

Dude, last time I check, you are a member of UN, without Indonesia signature, UNHCR would not be establish, you had not sign anything on WHO but are you part of WHO?

I did not refer to the 1967 protocol or the convention in 1951. But you still part of UNHCR, so you want UN help but don't want to do your part?

 

[Developereo]

First, I have click send by accident, I had not finished my post.

Secondly, you can apply in letter, you don't need to go to the embassy or consulate directly...

By the way, even at the height of the crisis, it's only 14,000 per year, you are telling me Australia Consulate in Jakarta cannot handle 14,000 people extra per year? That's comes down to 38 more per day, have you gone to the DIAC office inSydney?

You are listing a wish list.

Indonesia should offer asylum so Australia doesn't have to.
Refugees should apply to/in Indonesia, so Australia doesn't have to deal with this problem.

It is a wish list, not a legal or moral argument.

Of all the entities involved, it is not Indonesia or the refugees who are breaking any laws, it is Australia which is reneging on the spirit, or maybe even the letter, of the Refugee Convention.

It is an abject failure of the Australian leadership that the tail is wagging the dog. A strong and competent leadership would understand that Australia's legal obligations under international treaties cannot be held hostage to the temper tantrums and personal bigotry of media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and his media minions.

PS. As for the comparison with Hong Kong and Singapore with Vietnamese refugees, that only happened because Western countries had agreed to take in millions of refugees. Those processing centers in Hong Kong and Singapore were always understood to be temporary camps. How many Vietnamese refugees settled in HK and Singapore compared to the Western countries?

 

[jhungary]

You are listing a wish list.

Indonesia should offer asylum so Australia doesn't have to.
Refugees should apply to/in Indonesia, so Australia doesn't have to deal with this problem.

It is a wish list, not a legal or moral argument.

Of all the entities involved, it is not Indonesia or the refugees who are breaking any laws, it is Australia which is reneging on the spirit, or maybe even the letter, of the Refugee Convention.

It is an abject failure of the Australian leadership that the tail is wagging the dog. A strong and competent leadership would understand that Australia's legal obligations under international treaties cannot be held hostage to the temper tantrums and personal bigotry of media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and his media minions.

Lol we can all wish, as we can only babble on here without actually anything to do with the actual event

Problem is, you blame our own media swinging against the refugee, and sensationalise the problem.

If you want to talk about strong leadership and the humanitarian clause, I refer you to a case of
Stefan Nystrom
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Nystrom

Wonder why you never heard of it in major TV/media outlet?

 

[Developereo]

Lol we can all wish, as we can only babble on here without actually anything to do with the actual event

Problem is, you blame our own media swinging against the refugee, and sensationalise the problem.

If you want to talk about strong leadership and the humanitarian clause, I refer you to a case of
Stefan Nystrom
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Nystrom

Wonder why you never heard of it in major TV/media outlet?

I don't need to look any further than in our own backyard to find true leadership.

Malcolm Fraser is the guy you should be thanking for standing up to the racist Australian media back in the 70s and 80s. Were it not for him, your family would not have come to Australia in the first place.

You might want to read what he has to say about this latest wave of racist hysteria by the Australian media, and the Australian politicians' capitulation.

Malcolm Fraser on Coalition asylum plans: no limits to the inhumanity | World news | theguardian.com

There are no limits to which the opposition will not go to demonstrate inhumanity to people with a significantly demonstrated need. [This is] inhumanity demonstrated against some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

This is a total reversal of some of the values Australia had become renowned for. It saddens me to think that the Liberal party, and as I understand it also the Labor party, are thinking of additional ways to make their policies more brutal.

The policies have become so unreal, so inhumane overall, it’s very hard to look at just one aspect, which increases the uncaring nature of the opposition. The terrible thing is that the opposition and the government both believe they can win votes by behaving in this way.

I don’t really believe they can.

I believe these steps have gone so far that people will be looking for alternatives to voting for either Liberal or Labor.

Neither of them deserves to win. Neither of them deserves to govern. Certainly neither of them deserves to have control of both houses of parliament.

I hope it [the policy] would [be subject to a high court challenge] I can’t make a judgment to the law in relation to that, but one of the aspects of the policy as I heard it was that there’s not going to be any appeal, that one person is going to make a judgment that asylum seeker’s claims are valid or invalid, and as I heard it that was the end of it.

No appeal. No judicial review. So the Liberal party, having demonstrated its intent, I would have thought that they would be very careful in the people they chose to make that decision, so that they would have a very large number judged not to be asylum seekers.

We are not only breaking all the common rules of decency, we’ve breached our obligations under the refugee convention. We’ve breached our obligations under UNHCR. Any idea of duty of care to the vulnerable is totally out of the window.

I know that from correspondence I get, and people speaking to me from overseas, that this has already damaged Australia’s reputation and it will take decades to recover.

 

[jhungary]

I don't need to look any further than in our own backyard to find true leadership.

Malcolm Fraser is the guy you should be thanking for standing up to the racist Australian media back in the 70s and 80s. Were it not for him, your family would not have come to Australia in the first place.

You might want to read what he has to say about this latest wave of racist hysteria by the Australian media, and the Australian politicians' capitulation.

Malcolm Fraser on Coalition asylum plans: no limits to the inhumanity | World news | theguardian.com

There are no limits to which the opposition will not go to demonstrate inhumanity to people with a significantly demonstrated need. [This is] inhumanity demonstrated against some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

This is a total reversal of some of the values Australia had become renowned for. It saddens me to think that the Liberal party, and as I understand it also the Labor party, are thinking of additional ways to make their policies more brutal.

The policies have become so unreal, so inhumane overall, it’s very hard to look at just one aspect, which increases the uncaring nature of the opposition. The terrible thing is that the opposition and the government both believe they can win votes by behaving in this way.

I don’t really believe they can.

I believe these steps have gone so far that people will be looking for alternatives to voting for either Liberal or Labor.

Neither of them deserves to win. Neither of them deserves to govern. Certainly neither of them deserves to have control of both houses of parliament.

I hope it [the policy] would [be subject to a high court challenge] I can’t make a judgment to the law in relation to that, but one of the aspects of the policy as I heard it was that there’s not going to be any appeal, that one person is going to make a judgment that asylum seeker’s claims are valid or invalid, and as I heard it that was the end of it.

No appeal. No judicial review. So the Liberal party, having demonstrated its intent, I would have thought that they would be very careful in the people they chose to make that decision, so that they would have a very large number judged not to be asylum seekers.

We are not only breaking all the common rules of decency, we’ve breached our obligations under the refugee convention. We’ve breached our obligations under UNHCR. Any idea of duty of care to the vulnerable is totally out of the window.

I know that from correspondence I get, and people speaking to me from overseas, that this has already damaged Australia’s reputation and it will take decades to recover.

Dude, for the last time, I do not want to get into another Lib/Lab debate, you think Tony Abbott is an idiot, yet Australian (more than Majority) chose him for a reason. A fact that regardless of what you think will still hold true

I am just going to response you on this
Australian government did not break any UNHCR convention and protocol by not taking them in our land

The refugee require to register with UNHCR, it's not An Australian Initiative, and Australian have sole right to determine who they allow to stay in Australia and who is permitted to enter Australia.

Please do proof your point of Australian is breaking the law by refusing do, with reference please

By the way., you still have not answer me regarding Stefan Nystrom, why his case is unknown in Australia?

 

[Developereo]

Dude, for the last time, I do not want to get into another Lib/Lab debate,

The point was not about Lib v/s Labor. If you notice, both I and Malcolm Fraser condemned both sides.

The point was the capitulation of Australian politicians to let media moguls dictate government policy on international treaties.

Please do proof your point of Australian is breaking the law by refusing do, with reference please

Boat turnbacks may breach international law: UNHCR

By the way., you still have not answer me regarding Stefan Nystrom, why his case is unknown in Australia?

OK, I looked him up. I don't understand how he is relevant to this debate on asylum seekers.

 

[jhungary]

The point was not about Lib v/s Labor. If you notice, both I and Malcolm Fraser condemned both sides.

The point was the capitulation of Australian politicians to let media moguls dictate government policy on international treaties.



Boat turnbacks may breach international law: UNHCR



OK, I looked him up. I don't understand how he is relevant to this debate on asylum seekers.

1.) that was another time, if the government decision is that easily be influenced by the media, we would have heard about Stefan Nystrom by now.

2.) keyword, May. As I quoted, the majority of the free passage to asylum operate on the issue not to tangle with the same country border security policy, that's why that article say the refusing of refugee to land in Australia "May" breach international law

3.) that was an example on how our government tackle humanitarian issue (refugee is also humanitarian issue) without the incident exploding to the media, that is why that case had gone on for a few year and yet I bet you just hear about it now

If it's as you accused the government run on media direction, then should the media had already made a big deal out of the Stefan incident?

 

[Developereo]

keyword, May. As I quoted, the majority of the free passage to asylum operate on the issue not to tangle with the same country border security policy, that's why that article say the refusing of refugee to land in Australia "May" breach international law

It's an official statement by a UN agency, not a couple of guys posting on a forum.

Of course, they will be careful with the wording, but the fact that they raised the issue of legality in the first place is significant. In diplomatic speak, that's a very strong statement, given the fact that the UNHCR knows that joining the is voluntary.

3.) that was an example on how our government tackle humanitarian issue (refugee is also humanitarian issue) without the incident exploding to the media, that is why that case had gone on for a few year and yet I bet you just hear about it now

That's a non sequitur to this debate. The topic here isn't how the government acts in the absence of media hysteria, but how it acts in the face of it.

The Australian government makes a million decisions which don't make it to the media. So what?

If it's as you accused the government run on media direction, then should the media had already made a big deal out of the Stefan incident?

The media was irrelevant in that case.

Did his case balloon into an election campaign issue?
Did one party make it a centerpiece of their election campaign, as the Liberals did in a shameless orgy of raw xenophobia, with "STOP THE BOATS" almost becoming their election slogan?

 

[jhungary]

It's an official statement by a UN agency, not a couple of guys posting on a forum.

Of course, they will be careful with the wording, but the fact that they raised the issue of legality in the first place is significant. In diplomatic speak, that's a very strong statement, given the fact that the UNHCR knows that joining the is voluntary.



That's a non sequitur to this debate. The topic here isn't how the government acts in the absence of media hysteria, but how it acts in the face of it.

The Australian government makes a million decisions which don't make it to the media. So what?



The media was irrelevant in that case.

Did his case balloon into an election campaign issue?
Did one party make it a centerpiece of their election campaign, as the Liberals did in a shameless orgy of raw xenophobia, with "STOP THE BOATS" almost becoming their election slogan?

First, a statement is just a statement, even in the eyes of the UN.

If the UNHCR have enough knowledge and support system, they will not publish a statement stating the act may breach, but they will publish a statement blaming and shaming the decision of Australian Government.

UN is not China, they don't get pay by issuing warning, when UN have something to say, they will say it. The fact they themselves is not sure that leads to the unclear comment.

The example I quote is another issue, the government would not swing where the media want them to swing, infact, it's the media job to put incident on the table. Unlike china, where the outlet only have one direction, you cannot escape where that going

In Australia, we have multiple voice and if you had watch a Simpson that's about Monty Burns trying to buy off all the media outlet, it's impossible to do so...

You keep saying media outlet manipulate the government decision, then if so, then they will not swing voting issue, but they will create voting issue...

You are right about one thing, no media is innocent, they all take a side, but it's viewer (government included) to balance the voice. The fact is, you believe the media is manipulating the government is also one of the media manipulation.

And I think you are over zealous with the issue and you already have your view for this government, while I have mind.

Lol, but remember, it's not because the majority don't know your version of truth so the current government is elected, but people simply don't think your concern is a problem, so Tony Abbott is elected.

I am not going to pretent there are no discrimination in this country, but you seems to see it every so often. Sometime, how it handle is just how it handle, it have nothing about race or religion to it

 

[Developereo]

If the UNHCR have enough knowledge and support system, they will not publish a statement stating the act may breach, but they will publish a statement blaming and shaming the decision of Australian Government.

That's not how is works. The UN has no teeth since compliance to the Refugee Convention is voluntary.

Until someone files a lawsuit challenging the Australian government's actions as being illegal, nothing will happen.

In Australia, we have multiple voice

You keep saying media outlet manipulate the government decision, then if so, then they will not swing voting issue, but they will create voting issue...

The media _did_ create an issue out of a non-issue. Asylum seekers were not an issue in anyone's mind until the media hysteria made it into an election slogan.

 

[jhungary]

That's not how is works. The UN has no teeth since compliance to the Refugee Convention is voluntary.

Until someone files a lawsuit challenging the Australian government's actions as being illegal, nothing will happen.

Actually, no, if UNHCR determined the action of the Australian Government, they will publicly condemn it, even if they have jurisdiction over it

There are tons of example from Korean War to Somalia genocide

The media _did_ create an issue out of a non-issue. Asylum seekers were not an issue in anyone's mind until the media hysteria made it into an election slogan.

Lol, the problem pre-date the election

Maybe not in your mind, but former refugee start screaming foul before it was turned into election issue.

As I said, somebody have to care for media to turn something into election issue. If no one care, then why turn them into election issue lol?

And still news corp did not own 100% of the pie, hence there would still be other voice to balance the majority.

 

[Developereo]

Actually, no, if UNHCR determined the action of the Australian Government, they will publicly condemn it, even if they have jurisdiction over it

UNHCR has fired a warning shot across the bow. Let's see if they say anything more over time.

Maybe not in your mind, but former refugee start screaming foul before it was turned into election issue.

As I said, somebody have to care for media to turn something into election issue. If no one care, then why turn them into election issue lol?

Oh, I don't deny that there is a small constituency which cares about this issue. There are interest groups for everything.

But it was not a mainstream threat to national security as it has been made out to be.

And still news corp did not own 100% of the pie, hence there would still be other voice to balance the majority.

Between Murdoch and Packer, they own 90% of the newspapers in the major cities.