Australia has committed herself. We will withdraw when Indonesia recognises that the nations of Papua New Guinea and West Papua have sovereignty over the whole of New Guinea/Irian Jaya, and the union of both halves of Timor, pending referenda. Until that time, we fight on, in whatever way, shape or form necessary. The idea of the offensive actions were to force the Indonesians to recognise these things early, before a protracted war.
I suppose my indian spot has been usurped? aw well.
This is ludicrous. You are first helping separatists of West Papua in your sovereign neighbor of Indonesia. Then you try to artificially merge two regions of Timor that has no relation to each other, speak different languages, and have been unified only for a couple of decades in the last several centuries, you are inviting a mini-civil war on the island.
If it were a moral obligation, as you suggest, to exact local people's will; then you would have supported Chechens in Russia, Tibet in China, TRNC in Cyprus, and many other independence movements in the past decades all over the world. Therefore this is obviously an excuse for you to invade one of your neighbors.
We see no point in further discussing this issue of you acting outside all internationally acceptable behavior, until you come to your senses.
As I said regarding Timor, "pending referenda". If, post referendum, West Timor should choose independence, or to return to Indonesia, then so be it, that is their right. As for the point regarding seperatist movements, I (OOC: Kevin Rudd, remember that Howard's gone) have only been Prime Minister as the Chechen conflict wound down to it's conclusion and the Cypriots began, and completed, the process of reunification. As for Tibet, it is the policy of this government that if the Tibetan people seek recognition, they will have it. However, they have not approached us, as the West Papuans did, and as such have yet to recieve recognition.
Who are you to issue decrees on affairs halfway across the world, hmm? Do we interfere in the affairs of Europe? No. We stated our intentions for our area of the world very clearly in the Rudd Doctrine, and this is an application of that Doctrine. If you have a problem, then come and settle it, don't just sit back and critique like a coward.
We can resume this discussion when you learn the difference between international diplomacy and cowardice.
Fëanor;5144008 said:Well, you can still have India, its just that sheep and i though you had forgotten about it so he gave me a shot, but i was warned so if you want it, its yours.
I am perfectly aware of the difference. International diplomacy involves constant compromise, unless you're a power like America, with the ability to back up unilateral demands. So far, all I have seen from Turkey is demands that we leave everything to a government that has funded constant raids and attacks on a sovereign nation, and has committed a variety of atrocities against the people of West Papua. Since you have offered no compromise option, even after we stated conditions under which we would leave, and did not debate a compromise which could be effectively proposed to Indonesia with the support of multiple nations, I fail to see how your demands and postulations, laced with the bitterness of a criticism now decades old, can qualify as proper diplomacy.
is america at war with me?