Doublethink
Aug. 30th, 2005 05:46 pmI've just listened to Alexander Downer interviewed on triple J's Hack Current affairs program. There's a podcast, so it should be available for a week online.
It was ... stunning.
When asked if he supported West Papuan independance, he responded 'no'. He kept talking about 'the Balkanisation of the Indonesian Archipeligo'. OK, fair enough, but why?
Hack "Do you think that the original referendum to incorporate West Papua into Indonesia was corrupt?"
Downer "No."
Hack "?!?!?? But the Suharto regime hand picked the 1200 people, and told them that they would be charged with treason if they voted no..."
Downer "Look, that was a long time ago, and it wasn't Suharto, it was the UN."
Hack "?!?? But Suharto did the..."
Downer "No, the UN ran that referendum, [therefore it is the UN's fault, and if it was corrupt, then it was your precious UN which was the source of the corruption] and anyway, it was a long time ago [History is irrelevant]."
Hack "What about East Timor? You supported their independance..."
Downer "No, they're completely different. West Papua was a part of the Dutch East India Company, which is what Indonesia is now, Timor never was, it was a Portugese colony [Ooh look, suddenly history is relevant again!]"
Summary: If there is any blame to be laid for West Papua, it is entirely at the feet of the [eeevil] UN, and history is irrelevant except when it isn't [and we decide when], and I haven't heard of any atrocities in West Papua, and anyway, the insurgents have performed them too.
He then went on to prove that Black is White, and got himself killed on the next Zebra crossing.
Well... we can dream.
The sooner we can get these duplicitous, hypocritical, sophistic gray men out of power, the better off everyone will be.
Now excuse me, I have to go choke on some bile.
It was ... stunning.
When asked if he supported West Papuan independance, he responded 'no'. He kept talking about 'the Balkanisation of the Indonesian Archipeligo'. OK, fair enough, but why?
Hack "Do you think that the original referendum to incorporate West Papua into Indonesia was corrupt?"
Downer "No."
Hack "?!?!?? But the Suharto regime hand picked the 1200 people, and told them that they would be charged with treason if they voted no..."
Downer "Look, that was a long time ago, and it wasn't Suharto, it was the UN."
Hack "?!?? But Suharto did the..."
Downer "No, the UN ran that referendum, [therefore it is the UN's fault, and if it was corrupt, then it was your precious UN which was the source of the corruption] and anyway, it was a long time ago [History is irrelevant]."
Hack "What about East Timor? You supported their independance..."
Downer "No, they're completely different. West Papua was a part of the Dutch East India Company, which is what Indonesia is now, Timor never was, it was a Portugese colony [Ooh look, suddenly history is relevant again!]"
Summary: If there is any blame to be laid for West Papua, it is entirely at the feet of the [eeevil] UN, and history is irrelevant except when it isn't [and we decide when], and I haven't heard of any atrocities in West Papua, and anyway, the insurgents have performed them too.
He then went on to prove that Black is White, and got himself killed on the next Zebra crossing.
Well... we can dream.
The sooner we can get these duplicitous, hypocritical, sophistic gray men out of power, the better off everyone will be.
Now excuse me, I have to go choke on some bile.
History
Date: 2005-08-30 03:56 am (UTC)Actually, Downer is just pushing the same line all Oz governments have put since. Labor in office would be no different on the issue, for the same reasons.
And being a Portugese colony for 5 centuries with a overwhelmingly Catholic population is a bit more important than a single UN-supervised referendum. As events have demonstrated.
Re: History
Date: 2005-08-30 04:52 pm (UTC)Hang on... this was the same Suharto who was praised from one end to the other for the wholesale slaughter of anyone who even looked like a Communist?
They were worried about him going to the Soviets or Chinese?
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Re: History
Date: 2005-08-30 05:10 pm (UTC)And Labor presenting that same line would be as objectionable, for the same reasons.
It wasn't just the historical context, it was that the historical context was or was not relevant depending on whether it suited Downer's rhetoric. Yes, I know that this is standard practice, but you don't usually expect to hear 'The history is irrelevant' and 'the history is vitally important' in the space of two sentences.
It was also the flat denial of the knowledge of atrocities by PKI in West Papua (maybe his advisors forgot to tell him) or the repeated statement the the current government of Indonesia is above reproach, or that the UN supervised 'referendum' (I note that the 'UN observer' is in the singular...) was free and fair, because the UN said so, and the implication that any malfeasance is entirely the UN's fault...
If you look at the situation from outside his little hermetic worldview, like, you know, a rational informed human being would, then his statements are self-evident bullshit.
And he didn't even blush.
Re: History
Date: 2005-08-30 05:42 pm (UTC)For goodness sake everyone read the history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Papua
Re: History
Date: 2005-08-30 11:12 pm (UTC)Re: History
Date: 2005-08-30 11:15 pm (UTC)Re: History
Date: 2005-08-30 11:21 pm (UTC)'Because we can't afford to upset Indonesia, and if we were to do this it would upset Indonesia greatly,' is a reasonable response. It would have been an honest answer, too. Neither would it insult the Indonesians, methinks.
That is not the answer he gave.
He instead waffled on about how it was a long time ago, and it's the UN's fault, and he hadn't heard about anything nasty going on (except by the rebels), and...
He tried to make Australia's pragmatic reasons for not supporting West Papuan Independance look like moral reasons. Sorry, that won't fly. My Bullshit meter pegged.
Re: History
Date: 2005-08-30 11:47 pm (UTC)I suspect Downer was thinking in terms of what media folk would want rather than what would fly in the media for ordinary folk. Which, as you say, means he gave a response which is not actually a good one for either audience.