Aceh talks to be still

Aceh talks to be still
born, as distrust goes on

Dr Damien Kingsbury is Head of Philosophical, Political and
International Studies at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.

Negotiations between the Indonesian government and the Free
Aceh Movement (GAM), which are aimed at ending the northern
province's protracted conflict, look set to fail, with both the
government and GAM locked into separate final positions before
the talks even begin. The talks, to be held in Geneva under the
auspices of US General Anthony Zinni aimed at ending the
province's 26 year old war for independence.

The Indonesian government has made GAM's acceptance of a
special autonomy package for Aceh it announced early this year
the starting point for negotiations.

However, some observers in Jakarta say that acceptance of the
autonomy package should be the government's preferred outcome,
and not its starting point.

However, speaking in Kuala Luimpour ahead of the talks, GAM
negotiators say that the autonomy package is deeply flawed and,
being less than independence, would need to be voted on by the
people of the province. The Indonesian government has so far
refused to accept the idea of a ballot on the autonomy package,
fearing its rejection would be a clear sign that most Acehnese do
in fact want independence.

Refusal by the Indonesian government to accept a popular vote
on autonomy for Aceh has been paralleld by threats of full-scale
military action in the province, although most observers say that
the Indonesian military (TNI) is already engaged in full-scale
military action. There are currently some 22,000 TNI soldiers in
Aceh, along with more than 12,000 paramilitary 'Mobile Brigade'
national police and some 10,000 militia, mostly in central Aceh.

GAM has about 3,500 armed guerrillas in the hills and an
active suport base of around 10,000. More than 2,500 people have
been killed in Aceh since the beginning 2001 - GAM claims 6,000
in 2001 alone - following on from the deaths of more than 10,000
in the period from 1989 to 1998, known as the Military Operations
Area (DOM) period.

Also testing the Indonesian government's possible acceptance
of a popular ballot on autonomy, GAM says that for any such vote
to be free, fair and transparent, it would require the
involvement of an external organisation, such as the UN or a UN-
sanctioned body. The Indonesian government and in particular the
TNI has flatly refused to countenance the presence of a foreign
organisation to oversee any further ballots, 'nationalist'
sensitivity to such issues being highlighted by the separation of
East Timor after the UN-supervised ballot of 1999.

The most recent phase of the conflict in the resource-rich
province began in 1999, after the outcome of the East Timor
ballot.GAM successes in the field, including cutting the Trans-
Sumatra Highway, despite an already high level of TNI activity,
led to an escalation of TNI and Brimob operations from mid-
2001.Since then dozens of villages and small towns have been
destroyed, there are now tens of thousands of internal refugees
and there have been well documented reports of numerous
massacres, one of which occurred next to the giant Exxon-
controlled Arun LNG plant at Lhokseumawe, south-east of Banda
Aceh.

Conflict between the Acehnese and Jakarta began in 1953, after
Jakarta scrapped Aceh's status as a quasi-independent province
following the war of independence against the Dutch. Peace was
concluded in 1963 on the basis that Aceh received 'special
autonomy' status. However, Jakarta continued to intervene in
Acehnese affairs, and dominated the economy, especially receipts
from the Aurn LNG plant, leading to an outbreak of hostilities
from 1976.

Members of the GAM negotiating team say they believe there was
a chance of reaching a compromise settlement with Jakarta up
until 1999. But since 1999, they say, there have been too many
human rights abuses in the province and the Indonesian government
has refused to guarantee that any negotiated settlement would
include charges against TNI officers based on crimes aghainst
humanity.

GAM negotiators now say that the only possible settlement must
involve a ballot on Jakarta's new autonomy package, withthe
alternative being a vote for independence.

2. Plate -- The otherwise benign hegemon recovers from the shock
of 9/11
1 X 30

The recovery from Sept. 11 shock
Tom Plate
Founder
Asia Pacific Media Network
Los Angeles

The terrible tragedy that occurred last Sept. 11 left America
not only with a sense of deep loss but a renewed sense of
direction and national mission that had been noticeably absent in
recent years. Certainly, for the administration of George W.
Bush, floundering from the outset for a North Star to which to
align its policy compass, the gruesome massacres did the job.
Now, we have seen the enemy -- and they are the terrorists.
There's not much dissent in the United States about that.

On one level, the inadvertent benefit of what happened a year
ago was immediate. In Europe, America's allies began quarreling a
little less and cooperating with Washington a little more. Joint
intelligence efforts were accelerated, and old tensions were, for
a while at least, set to the side. In Asia, it quickly became
clear that, with real enemies to worry about -- al-Qaeda and the
like -- Washington didn't have to ratchet up problems to solve
and improbable enmities to stare down, no time for phantom bad
guys of the Washington political opera.

One almost instant such effect was the re-normalization of
relations with China. Of course, there were, and still are,
serious tensions in the Sino-U.S. relationship (Taiwan, human
rights, etc.). But, rather quickly, China became part of the
solution instead of the problem when the Bush administration
realized -- its unilateralist gut notwithstanding -- that America
needed all the outside help it could get. And the Jiang Zemin
government played its hand well enough to stay on the right side
of the line in the sand being drawn by Sheriff Bush.

Before long, however, the definition of the Sept. 11 problem
began to grow enormously. Iran, Iraq and North Korea were
famously lumped together as the Good, the Bad and the Ugly -- an
evil trio if there ever was one. But with all the ballooning
rhetoric came a familiar Washington phenomenon: Mission creep.
Having failed to capture or confirm as officially dead Osama bin
Laden, the Sheriff in Chief began drawing his sights on a more
visible "Axis of Terror" target: Saddam Hussein.

On one level, that's a good move. He's a genuinely bad guy;
its possible to imagine that the amount of genuine sympathy for
him worldwide, put on the head of a pin, would leave enough room
left for, say, the Three Gorges Dam. But if a new war against
Iraq ensues -- after the more or less automatic approval of
Congress and the rounding up of just enough international support
to blur the Bush Lonesome Cowboy image -- the United States will
be on a war footing for at least the duration of Bush's first
(only?) term.

And that would seriously mar the image of an America that the
world admires -- the America that not only won World War II but
helped rebuild much of the world after that triumph -- in Asia as
well as Europe.

The point was put well recently by China's Tang Shui Bei, now
head of the Research Center for Relations Across the Taiwan
Straits, a major mainland think tank. Ordinarily advice from
China, which imprisons political dissidents and acts in many ways
not the American way, doesn't travel well; but Tang -- the
irrepressible former head of cross-strait relations for the
People's Republic of China -- spoke with obviously sincere
conviction of the U.S.' need to diversify its international
portfolio. With its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and several
other well-meaning international treaties, America's "kinder,
gentler" side -- as Bush Sr. would have put it -- is at risk of
getting lost in the war-dance shuffle. One year after the World
Trade Center/Pentagon devastation, the United States must not
compound that tragedy by diluting its moral standing as a benign
hegemon.

For this essential national characteristic was key in
obtaining the cooperation of much of Asia in the effort against
al-Qaeda. No country, including China, could believe that U.S.
designs on acquiring Central Asian territory was the true motive,
suggested Tang and his delegation while visiting Los Angeles. But
as the United States moves closer to invading Iraq, it looks more
like a martial Sparta and less like a cultivated Athens, when
ideally America should be striking a balance between the two.

Even the West Coast-based RAND Corp., a famous think tank with
an image about as dovish as the Pentagon's, raised this fear in
its recent quarterly review. A major essay by prominent experts
proposed that America take the lead in organizing a massive world
health effort. Enemy bombs are not our only mortal enemies. So,
too, are epidemics that cross international borders; and disease
and poverty that germinate the cultures breeding terrorism's foot
soldiers. What the United States needs is a something of the
humanitarian order of a massive first-class global health aid
plan -- even more than it needs the head of Saddam Hussein on the
Pentagon's platter.

3. Strait9 -- Steps needed to control labour flow in region
1 X 32

Controlling labour flow in region

P. Ramasamy
professor of political science
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
The Straits Times
Asia News Network
Singapore

There are reasons to believe that Malaysia's tough immigration
law may not eliminate entirely the presence of illegal migrant
workers in the country. The law, which came into effect on Aug.
1, imposes a mandatory jail sentence and caning for those caught
entering the country illegally.

Before the law came into effect, the government announced an
amnesty in May for illegals to leave on their own accord. At the
same time, those who were rounded up were deported to their
respective places of origin. The majority of illegal immigrants
were from Indonesia and the Philippines.

It was estimated before the mass repatriation that Malaysia
had an immigrant population of nearly two million.

As soon as the law came into effect, a number of illegal
immigrants were jailed. It is estimated that 300,000 illegal
workers have been deported to date. Many more are being held in
detention centers.

The question is whether Malaysia can afford to deport the
illegals.

In the past, strong labour demand and the need to free
Malaysians to work in certain strategic sectors had prevented the
government from taking a tough stand against illegals. Given the
low cost of employing foreign labour, it developed a reliance on
them to attract foreign investments.

From time to time, some attempts were made to deport illegal
migrants. However, these moves did not have much economic impact
because those deported returned within a short time.

The long and porous borders between Malaysia, Indonesia and
the Philippines provided ample opportunity for those deported to
make a comeback. Moreover, the presence of numerous syndicates,
agents and corrupt officials facilitated the easy re-entry of
illegal migrants.

As long as there was a strong labour demand, the government
was able to tolerate the presence of illegal migrants. With wages
of illegals considerably lower than those of documented workers,
they could be absorbed easily into sectors such as construction
and plantations. In any case, Malaysians were not interested in
working in these two sectors.

However, following the financial crisis of 1997, job
opportunities for local and foreign labour began to vanish. Then,
the government began to move in a more systematic manner to
lessen its dependence on foreign labour in general and illegals
in particular.

A fall in the growth rate, lack of employment opportunities
and a drop in foreign direct investments were the factors that
forced the government to adopt restrictive measures.

Still, it would be difficult to remove all illegals as the
economy's crucial sectors -- construction, plantations and
domestic services -- are still dependent on both legal and
illegal foreign workers. This has led employers to make a strong
case to the authorities to go slow in deporting illegals.

What is needed is long-term measures to boost the economic
performance of countries in the region as a way to control and
regulate the flow of labour. Perhaps, it is time for ASEAN
countries to resolve the labour issue within the larger parameter
of economic development in the region.

It is unfortunate that the ASEAN Free Trade Area concept pays
hardly any attention to labour issues. It is not too late for
member nations to put labour on the agenda in the next round of
meetings.