To the United Nations International Court of Justice,

Recognising the genuine concern and responsibility which the good government and people of the Republic of Indonesia carry for the continued administration and welfare of the nation of West New Guinea ;  we acknowledge the distress caused to the people of Indonesia by international uncertainly concerning the legal status of the territory as either, an integrated province of Indonesia, or a non self-governing territory which has yet to express its free will on the issue of self-determination as specified in the United Nations Charter and United Nations General Assembly (UN GA) Resolutions 1514 and 1541 as agreed to in November 1960 by all membership of the United Nations then and since.
Desiring to assist President Yudhoyono and the Republic of Indonesia in its immense task of administration, Australia hereby petitions the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide its opinion on these five legal issues.

Question 1)
Taking into consideration that the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Nations had listed West New Guinea as a Non Self-Governing Territory during the 1950s and that the Republic of Indonesia did understand the territory to be a Non Self-Governing Territory subject to  Article 73 and 74 of the United Nations Charter and therefor to United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 1514 and 1541,
we ask the International Court of Justice to give its opinion whether 
obligations set out in Articles 73 and 74 of the United Nations Charter remain in Effect irrespective of which United Nations member was the administrative power for the non self-governing territory of West New Guinea until such time as West New Guinea ceases to be a Non-self governing territory as a result of the exercise by the people (not foreign nationals, as agreed by mutual agreement clarified in Article XVIII part d of the New York Agreement) of that territory of a genuine act of self-determination, in conformity with the United Nations Resolution 1541 (XV) Principles VI to IX, and
whether the Republic of Indonesia should now continue the transmission of information to the United Nations and prepare for the West New Guinea act of self determination..

Question 2)
We ask the International Court of Justice for its opinion whether the 1962 'Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea' and the subsequent 1969 'Act of Free Choice' should be declared null and void having been made for an improper purpose, specifically :

that it was negotiated in secret and without the consent of the territory's people (see ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/Oceania/jfkpapua.txt) to arrange a "Transfer of Administration" of those people, violating the intent of Article 1 part 2 of the United Nations Charter and well known international principles as expressed by U.S. President Wilson in his 1917 address to the US Senate "No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize and accept the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property.";

that the agreement would violate legal obligations of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Nations under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter including to ensure the territory's social advancement, their protection against abuses, the development of self-governance in line with their own political aspirations and the continued transmission of the territory's information to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, none of which could be assured if the administration was transferred to the Republic of Indonesia whose decade administration of the neighbouring territory of Ambon and the Moluccas islands (since that State's 1950 unsuccessful attempt to leave the Republic) was indicative of a subordinate position for a Melanesian population;

that the agreement asserted a false premise that West New Guinea people's political aspiration for independence was not yet known when their previous actions such as electing a national Parliament, the harmonious use of their "Morning Star" flag on the 1st December 1961, and spontaneous efforts in the highlands and at sea to repel Indonesian incursions during December 1961 and January 1962 indicated their wish not to be part of the Indonesian State ;

that the agreement had the affect of delaying independence in violation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 ;

that the agreement had the affect of transferring administration of West New Guinea mineral resources from the local people to a foreign power from whom the Freeport company was able to negotiate a thirty year mine license resulting in the deforestation, forced relocation, deaths, and forty years disruption of Papuan prosperity and advancement ;

and that the agreement fraudulently claims to be intended for the best interests of West New Guinea when United States records indicate that the agreement was negotiated in deference to the wishes of the United States.

Question 3)
We ask the International Court of Justice for its opinion whether the 1962 "New York Agreement" and the subsequent 1969 'Act of Free Choice' should be declared null and void, having been negotiated not in the genuine "interests and welfare of the people of the territory of West New Guinea (West Irian)" as falsely claimed by that contract to be one of its primary functions ; or 
 having been negotiated under duress and on bequest of the United States government as would be inferred by the letter from President Kennedy (see 
ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/Oceania/jfkpapua.txt) and by the United States historical summary of Foreign Affairs for 1962 (see http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summaries/950306_FRUS_XXIII_1961-63.html).

Question 4)
In agreement with the United States Congress who wrote Section 1115 titled "SEC. 1115. DEVELOPMENTS IN AND POLICY TOWARD INDONESIA" of the proposed United States 2006 Foreign Relations Authorization bill HR2601 which expressed concerns about conditions inside West New Guinea and requesting review of the 1969 'Act of Free Choice';
aware of five year investigation of the 'Act of Free Choice' by Pieter Drooglever and that the good Indonesian people would appreciate the opinion of the International Court of Justice;

We ask the International Court of Justice to give its opinion on the legitimacy of the 1969 'Act of Free Choice' , taking into account :

that the 'Act of Free Choice' was conducted in violation of UN Charter Article 73, contrary to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) which calls for the immediate transfer of all powers to the peoples of non-self governing territories without conditions or reservation in accordance with their freely expressed will or desire ;
that the preparation for and the conduct of the 'Act of Free Choice' was in breach of the terms of the 1962 Agreement referred to by UN GA 1752 and 2504 in these respects :
  Articles X and XI of the Agreement were violated in that UNTEA failed to explain to the population the terms of the Agreement and failed to consult representative councils elected by the people, as stipulated ;
  Article XIV of the Agreement was violated by denial of freedom of speech, movement, assembly, and communication with the outside world which had been enjoyed during the Netherlands' administration prior to Indonesian administration ;
  Article XV of the Agreement was violated by lack of periodic elections;
  Article XV of the Agreement was violated as the "primary task of 
Indonesia" as described by Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik ( see US Department of State telegrams  at 
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128 ) rather than helping the 
social development of West New Guinea was to station 10,000 troops 
who "devote no time to helping people but merely attend to their own wants and comforts", the telegrams of 1968 further state "current situation is far from satisfactory and deteriorating, just as it has to the West of West Irian in Ambon where bad administration has been root cause of recent outbreaks of what in effect was gang warefare [warfare] between military elements engaged in smuggling and other corrupt practices";
  Article XVII of the Agreement was violated by conducting the 'Act of Free Choice' process less than one year after the 22/Aug/1968 arrival of United Nations Representative, Ambassador Oritiz Sanz in the territory ;
  Article XVIII was violated by not consulting with representative councils elected by the people on the procedures and methods to be followed;
  Article XVIII was violated by not allowing "all adults, male and 
female, not foreign nationals to participate in the act of self-determination";
  Article XVIII was violated by not conducting the 'Act of Free 
Choice' "in accordance with international practice" , but allegedly by a 
Malay system 'Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat' in which community leaders are meant to freely debate ;
  Article XVIII was violated as voters were subject to overt and covert coercion ;
  that the alleged vote for integration was conducted under conditions which violate Annex 'Principle VIII' and 'Principle IX' of United Nations General Assembly resolution 1541 ; and
that the United Nations and its members including Indonesia failed to give
due respect or consideration of statements and requests of United Nations 
Representative Ambassador Oritz Sanz such as published in the New York Times 7/July/1969 see: http://fandom.net/InfoKit/Src/NYT/19690707.pdf .

and,
Question 5)
    We request the International Court of Justice to give its opinion whether the Republic of Indonesia has an obligation "to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter" of the United Nations as specified in United Nations resolution 1541,
    we call to your attention, that a prima facie obligation does exist
under Resolution 1541 Annex Principle IV which states :
"Prima facie there is an obligation to transmit information in respect of a territory which is geographically separate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it." ;
given that West New Guinea is part of continental Australia and both New 
Guinea and Arafura Sea are upon the Australian continental shelf, that the indigenous and endemic fauna include kangaroo, echidna, cassowary ; it is clear that West New Guinea is geographically part of the Australian and not Asian continent ;
  West Papuan people like other Australian Pacific peoples are Melanesian having and are ethnically distinct from the Malay and Polynesian people who arrived tens of thousands of years after the Melanesian people ;
  West Papuan communities are based around large communal societies which have been developed and refined during the forty thousand years of their sole occupation of New Guinea, these communities retain highly developed skills including community resolution and consensus building, and retain a strong land management culture, and are culturally distinct to Java and Asian cultures ;
  given the subordinate position of Papuan to Javanese people in the territory of West New Guinea, the inequality of justice such as the Timika ambush suspects who in January 2006 were taken thousands of kilometers from their homelands and lawyers in violation of autonomy agreements, inequality of the Indonesian courts ignoring clear evidence of Indonesian military (TNI) involvement before and after the Timika ambush, the inequitable gaol conditions often met out to Papuan people for expressing their political aspirations and as witnessed in one instance by a Swiss reporter in December 2000 (see http://fandom.net/InfoKit/Src/jail-rescue.html ) ;

given that the 1967 provision of a 30 year mine license to Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. seems to have made TNI officers and Jakarta the primary beneficiaries of the sale of West Papuan mineral resources rather than the West Papuan community ;

given that a US Department of State telegram of 1968 describes Indonesian 
Minister Malik stating "Ten thousand troops are not needed there, they are a drain on Indonesia and especially on overstrained West Irian economy" ,
there is good reason to believe that the approximately fifty thousand troops now authorised in West New Guinea by President Yudhoyono as well as the transmigration program and Indonesian military owned business exploitation of the territory constitute an alien domination indicative of subordination of the indigenous Papuan people and territory ;

given that in violation of UN GA Resolution 1514 which in part 6 states :
"6. 
Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations" , that the Republic of Indonesia has  attempted to divide the unity of the territory by creating multiple smaller administrative units which would have to compete for fractional grants from the foreign administration of Jakarta, that this division of the territory may also be in violation of the Republic's own constitution yet was not enough to dissuade an act which has the affect to divide and disrupt the unity of the region ;

given that the people of the territory do not appear to have the 
constitutional protections or rights assured for Indonesian citizens,
Article 28 of whose constitution has been translated into English as "Freedom of association and assembly, of verbal and written expression and the like, shall be prescribed by law" , Article 30 part 1 has been translated to "Every citizen has the right and duty to participate in the defence of the country", 
Article 31 part 1 has been translated to "1. Every citizen has the right to education.", yet the Papuan people have been dissuaded from free assembly, expression of their political aspirations, dissuaded from the defence of their country, and had a developing free education system with Dutch aid replaced by a commercial University which has had the affect of prolonging Javanese and transmigrant affluence over a subordinate Papuan population within the Indonesian State ;
and other conditions of inequality should allow the International Court of Justice to provide a clear determination as to the applicability of 
resolution 1541.