Australian Politics Forum - Indonesian Q&A

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96022 Gender:	Re: Indonesian Q&A Reply #75 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:13pm The UN likes to STOP THE BOATS too.
Back to top	IP Logged

buzzanddidj

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14198
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #76 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:18pm

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am:

Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia.

Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast.

What now, Tony?

It doesn't MATTER

MUCH was learnt from Tony Nutt's brilliant campaign that saw the highly incompetent Baillieu LibNats elected to government in Victoria, 2010

The brilliance - although deceitful aspect - of the campaign was to promise
"all things to all people"
( ... think the pledge to Andrei, to cut back on those "revenue raising" hidden speed cameras - which they then severely increased in both number and penalty value)

Getting into GOVERNMENT is the priority

Policy change, broken promises and pledges can be explained away at a later date - generally blaming the previous government for their failures

If the electorate fails is too stupid to see this - they fully deserve the government they get

Back to top

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38791 Gender:	Re: Indonesian Q&A Reply #77 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:23pm Shame this is so bloody murky. Some clarification from some credible source would be great, wot?
Back to top	IP Logged

buzzanddidj Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14198 Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC Gender:	Re: Indonesian Q&A Reply #78 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:24pm Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am: What now, Tony? Wasn't "pick up the phone, Julia - and call the President of Nauru" the way to "stop the boats" ?
Back to top	'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.' - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #79 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:26pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face.

The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here. For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz. But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home.

It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution.

Now tell me how this could fail!!

Sounds Like the Malaysian solution Shocked

The only problem with that was the cap.

no the problem was the UNHCR obligations. in this plan it is simply swap queue jumpers for queue applicants. But mainly it just stops the boat people period. Who would take a dangerous and expensive boat trip when you know 100% you will be sent back immediately (or drown).

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #80 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:28pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face.

The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here. For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz. But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home.

It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution.

Now tell me how this could fail!!

Well, what do you know?

You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell.

I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember?

Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000. how was that even similar??? and this plan is unlimited. the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #81 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:29pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia. This was done in International Waters.

Isn't that an act of piracy?

Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there.

If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely.

Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal. And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance?

according to whom? its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74740
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #82 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:39pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia. This was done in International Waters.

Isn't that an act of piracy?

Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there.

If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely.

Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal. And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance?

according to whom? its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain.

Tampa ring a bell?

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #83 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:48pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia. This was done in International Waters.

Isn't that an act of piracy?

Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there.

If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely.

Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal. And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance?

according to whom? its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain.

Tampa ring a bell?

not even close to the same thing. The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia.

try and keep up.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74740
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #84 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:49pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia. This was done in International Waters.

Isn't that an act of piracy?

Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there.

If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely.

Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal. And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance?

according to whom? its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain.

Tampa ring a bell?

not even close to the same thing. The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia.

try and keep up.

only after Indonesia refused to accept them.

alziemers kicking in is it?

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Peter Freedman

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #85 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:54pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Quote:

What's the incentive for Indonesia?

They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees.
They don't want dead people in the ocean.
They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich.
In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia. they need it fixed before then.

From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million.

The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election.

Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia?

High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing.

The 11m figure puts this whole issue into context.

The Australian problem is small beans, magnified by the two major parties for their own dirty political advantage.

And the rightard sheep, having their buttons pushed go: "Baaa, baaa, baaa."

Back to top

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 105560 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Indonesian Q&A Reply #86 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:59pm For economic illegal migrants - why don't we hire large passenger ships & take them back to their country of origin 10,000 at a time? That seems like a simple solution.
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38791
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #87 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:05pm

Quote:

only after Indonesia refused to accept them.

alziemers kicking in is it?

"I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission."

Indonesia did not refuse to accept them. The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island.

Hayseed sent troops on Board. Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74740
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #88 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:12pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

Quote:

only after Indonesia refused to accept them.

alziemers kicking in is it?

"I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission."

Indonesia did not refuse to accept them. The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island.

Hayseed sent troops on Board. Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand.

The Australian government tried to persuade Indonesia to accept the asylum seekers; Indonesia refused. Norway also refused to accept the asylum seekers and reported Australia to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation for alleged failure to obey its duties under international law, though it did not ask for the assistance of these organisations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96022
Gender: male

Re: Indonesian Q&A
Reply #89 - Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face.

The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here. For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz. But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home.

It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution.

Now tell me how this could fail!!

Well, what do you know?

You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell.

I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember?

Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000. how was that even similar??? and this plan is unlimited. the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats.

Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them?

And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries?

Please explain.

Back to top

IP Logged