Raids on women suspected of being street workers in Bogor have

Raids on women suspected of being street workers in Bogor have provoked criticism, with several people strongly protesting the Bogor administration's incompetence for netting the wrong persons last week.

The women were just taking a stroll when several officers apprehended them, despite the fact that they had ID cards. They were then rushed to a rehabilitation center in the neighboring town of Sukabumi.

Secretary of the Agency for People's Empowerment and Social Affairs Baringin Sipayung has, however, denied all the women's statements, arguing that his men were very experienced in "detecting" sex workers. Therefore, it was impossible that the officers arrested the wrong women, Sipayung claimed.

It is not easy to prove who is right, but, usually the authorities "can do no wrong". Common people, who have no bargaining power, have usually been victimized, even though they have done nothing against the law.

In general, people support the raids on street workers, but, the implementation must be extra careful so as not to violate the public interest by arresting the wrong people.

There is no single law prohibiting women from taking a walk at night in public places in this country. Women walking outdoors at night could be considered strange, but this is not against the law, if they bring ID cards with them.

Valid ID cards legitimize people's existence in the country. Therefore, women walking at night without ID cards could be arrested and treated like street workers by officers.

In this particular case, the officers should have been more careful and wiser.

-- Warta Kota, Jakarta

Peace appeal from Kuala Lumpur

War, in whatever form and whenever it takes place, is damaging and creates great sorrow, especially among innocent people.

In the case of Iraq, not only the Iraqi people will be affected by the war, but also all the people of the world, as well as the global economy.

Based on this consideration, members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), appealed for a peace settlement on the Iraq issue.

NAM, whose members comprise two-thirds of the United Nations member countries, thus rejected the U.S. plan to attack Iraq.

NAM's stance was clearly declared at its summit recently in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which ended last Wednesday. Participants at the summit also demanded that Iraq cooperate with the UN inspection team.

Earlier, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad had stated at the NAM Business Forum that the real target of the U.S. and its allies was Islam, not Iraq. He pointed out that the U.S. and its allies' treatment of North Korea (over similar issues on weapons of mass destruction) is different from their attitude against Iraq. So far, the U.S. had been very lenient and was using diplomatic means to try and settle the tension with North Korea, but it was determined to use arms against Iraq, Mahathir said.

Mahathir is known for his tough stance against terrorism, but he turned down the idea of fighting global terrorism by attacking sovereign countries.

The summit was also used by Indonesian President Megawati Soekarnoputri to reject war as a solution to the dispute over Iraq.

We hail Megawati's statements and only hope that further action, including from the UN, will be made in this line.

-- Republika, Jakarta

Wiranto to be indicted?

We were startled upon reading reports that the United Nations is going to indict Gen. (ret) Wiranto at the International Tribunal for rights violations in East Timor.

Isn't it a kind of concoction that the UN will bring Wiranto and some other generals to court for crimes against humanity committed in East Timor around 1999?

According to foreign minister Hassan Wirajuda, the UN, which is present in East Timor in a supportive capacity, has no judicial authority (to indict any Indonesian for any offense). Hassan said that the East Timor court's jurisdiction is limited to East Timor, and the jurisdiction of Indonesian courts are also restricted to the archipelagic borders of Indonesia.

Ad hoc trials have been ongoing in Jakarta's courts with several civilian and military officials being tried for rights violations in the former Indonesian province just before the referendum was to be held there.

Chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly Amien Rais has said that bringing Wiranto to the International Tribunal would not happen.

Any questions related to the issue (of bringing Wiranto to the international court) were answered by the UN Secretary-General spokesman Fred Eckhard, who said that it was the Timor Leste (East Timor) Attorney General's Office, not the UN, that wanted to indict Wiranto and several other Indonesian generals.

Recently, misinformation on Indonesia has been disseminated by the Western media, especially issues connected to the military.

The question is, are these professional mistakes, deliberate errors, or simply accidental inclusions?

-- Kompas, Jakarta

Ariel Sharon's Cabinet

From the moment the Likud was returned to power in the 2001 elections until the negotiations for setting up his second government began, Ariel Sharon has made a determined effort to be perceived in Israel and abroad as a pragmatic leader for whom terrorism was the only barrier to making peace with our Palestinian neighbors.

Two years ago, the prime minister hastened to bring the Labor Party into government, offering it tempting promises in the diplomatic arena and prestigious ministries. Sharon responded positively to every diplomatic initiative by the United States - the Mitchell plan, the Tenet plan and the Bush policy speech. He even declared his willingness to make "painful concessions" and to see a Palestinian state established with temporary borders.

In practice, the 18-month tenure of the unity government was characterized by a complete diplomatic freeze, accompanied by murderous terrorism, an economic crisis and an erosion of Israel's international standing. Learning from his colleagues' painful experiences, Labor Party chairman Amram Mitzna declined to rely on vague promises.

He demanded that Sharon anchor detailed coalition guidelines in a written document. Sharon refused to commit to a timetable for the establishment of a Palestinian state or even to commit in principle to dismantling isolated settlements. This raised suspicions about the credibility of the prime minister's diplomatic vision and led the negotiations to a dead end.

All the declarations about a Palestinian state are meaningless beside the appointment of NRP Chairman Effi Eitam as housing and construction minister. In the past, Eitam has voiced vehement opposition even to evacuating illegal settlement outposts whose dismantlement was ordered by the previous defense minister, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer.

The NRP and National Union do not merely object to any hint of a willingness to end the occupation - they have come out strongly against any initiative to withdraw the Israel Defense Forces from the heart of Palestinian cities or to ease life for Palestinian civilians.

The agreements with the NRP and National Union should serve as a clear sign that Sharon's goal is not to get out of the territories in order to resume talks with the Palestinians. The alliance with Shinui has no power to hide the new government's true face.

It is a government without diplomatic tidings, resting on a coalition with the ideological right to whom any idea of compromise is foreign. All the rest is nothing but transparent camouflage.

--Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv, Israel

Pope John Paul II

A Polish pope cannot be a pacifist. A Polish national has got in his blood the history of his nation, which has been offended, divided and obliterated. Something deep must have taken root in Pope John Paul II's soul, if he has committed himself so forcefully to the fight against war.

There is no doubt, that for him the matter is not only preventing a worldwide disaster, but also recalling the old Europe's soul. As a European and a Pole, the pope has lived and prayed throughout wartime experiences that have bloodied European soil.

His appeal for a worldwide fast on March 5 is yet another signal of his opposition to Bush's crusade. This is not about blanket pacifism or anti-Americanism. What is really important to him is that the world will not lose its only existing and legitimate body- the UN- which is able to promote the interests of everyone and govern the planet in an orderly way.

John Paul has called Europe to its responsibilities of preventing a clash of civilizations, disarming dangerous countries without violating international law, combatting terrorism by fighting its causes and preserve the role of the U.N. as the guardian of global stability. This is what the Pope expects from Europe.--La Repubblica, Rome

Second UN resolution

The United States and Great Britain have given the U.N. Security Council an offer in classic mafia style: Either you're with us or you have no meaning. War is coming, in any case.

Fortunately, there are nations in Europe with enough backbone to withstand the pressure. Germany and France have Russia with them on a so-called memorandum in which the peaceful disarmament of Iraq is requested.

This pressure on Iraq works, and must be maintained. A new resolution is not needed.

This should be regarded positively by all the countries who want the Iraq conflict solved by diplomacy and not war.

The United Nation's only chance to survive the conflict is to expel the U.S. and British explanation for war and adopt the plan for peace put forward by France, Germany and Russia.

--Dagsavisen, Oslo, Norway

North Korea's defiance

The Korean drama is taking on new, dangerous qualities. On Tuesday, North Korea fired a missile that landed in the Sea of Japan. It was a provocation against both the international community and South Korea, where a new president was taking office.

But, most of all, the North Koreans' thoughtless demonstration was directed at the United States which has repeatedly warned leaders in Pyongyang that missile tests could increase tensions on the Korean Peninsula. A new international crisis is what the U.S. wants least.

Until now, the United States has laid low. On Tuesday, in a conciliatory gesture, the U.S. said that food aid to North Korea will continue. At the same time, efforts are continuing to engage China's assistance to find a solution to the Korean problem. But, they're on a collision course and North Korea won't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. As such, it's possible that North Korea will soon be the main headline on the international agenda.

--Hufvudstadsbladet, Helsinki, Finland

Shame on Ahold

For years, Ahold was one of the most admired companies in the Netherlands: active around the globe, with good profits and a rising share price. But all good things must come to an end. Ahold warned this morning (Feb. 26) that 2002 profits will be considerably lower than expected, and worse, there have been serious bookkeeping irregularities at its American and Argentinian subsidiaries.

Revenues at the American arm appear to have been overstated by at least US $500 million, forcing the restatement of 2000 and 2001 earnings. The company's top executive and financial officer have resigned. Ahold's acquisition policy, accountancy reviews and risk analyses have proved to be literally not worth a cent.

There couldn't have been more disastrous news for Ahold, whose name will now join the list with the likes of Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen. The reach of all this is scarcely imaginable, but it will be huge. Ahold must give an accounting for exactly what went wrong, when and how. Experience shows that only complete openness can offer any solace: Shareholders, creditors and employees have a right to it.

--NRC Handlesblad, Rotterdam, Netherlands

American allies and the costs of war

To win allies for its campaign to disarm Iraq, President Bush has opened the nation's pocketbook. He is offering financial inducements whose total is unknown but is sure to be in the tens of billions of dollars, not including the cost of fighting a war. At least as troubling as the price tag is whether the administration is making promises that could come back to haunt it.

Turkey is a critical case in point. Washington wants to deploy troops along Turkey's border with Iraq, to open a northern front in the event of war. As a condition, the Turks have demanded money -- US$15 billion is the latest reported figure, or about $50 per American. But they also want more: U.S. assent to a leading role for Turkish forces in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, a role U.S. officials appear to have approved. Ankara hopes to prevent a repeat of the Kurdish refugee exodus that followed the 1991 Persian Gulf War by delivering humanitarian relief to the Kurds in Iraq. ...

No one can foretell the exact course of events if war comes. But the apparent extent of the U.S. commitment to Turkey -- apparent because many details are still unresolved and because the Turkish parliament, facing strong popular opposition to war, has delayed voting on the plan -- only adds to the list of dire consequences that could flow from a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

This is not the only reason for President Bush to think twice before going to war, but it's a powerful one.

--The Modesto Bee, Modesto, California

Possible U.S. attack on Iraq:

In its frantic bid to drum up support for its anti-Iraq strategy, the U.S. cannot lose notice of the time factor. If there were war, March would be the last chance in terms of weather conditions in the Gulf. Searing desert temperature will be a significant obstacle to American servicemen clad in anti- chemical gear. In the run-up to a second resolution, Washington is intensifying its diplomatic offensive to win over skeptical allies and veto- wielding powers at the Security Council. Haunted by accusations of unilateralism, the Bush administration is at pains to convince a reluctant world that the coming war will be fought for its good and in its name.--Egyptian Gazette, Cairo, Egypt Bush administration and the United Nations:

The Bush administration's attitude to the United Nations is extraordinary. We know that its more ideological members, such as Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, and the curiously invisible Vice President Dick Cheney, dislike the U.N. with an unreasoning venom akin to that shown by British Euroskeptics toward the European Union. They regard the UN almost as a socialist conspiracy, an alien supranational power planted on Manhattan as a standing affront to the values of freedom and democracy.

It must be suspected that George Bush himself shares much of this view. Yet he is also a practical politician of some skill, and recognized that domestic opinion was allergic to the idea of the U.S. going into a war on Iraq alone. He realized that the UN was a way of mobilizing the "coalition of the willing" against Saddam Hussein. ...

Over the next three weeks ... the member countries of the U.N., and especially those that are members of the Security Council, face a historic duty. They must decide how to respond to President Bush's challenge, issued repeatedly in recent weeks, to make the UN "relevant."

They should ignore cheap insults accusing opponents of war of wanting the UN to be as ineffective as the League of Nations: Saddam is not Hitler and Kim Jong-il is not Mussolini. The test of the UN's relevance cannot be the extent to which it comes into line with U.S. policy. On the contrary, the test must be the extent to which it encourages U.S. policy to come into line with the concept of international law.

That is why those opponents of the war who accuse the UN of simply being a puppet of the U.S. are as mistaken as Bush. The UN may be imperfect, but it does embody the idea of international law. Last year, the U.S. dismissed the idea of restoring UN inspectors to Iraq as a waste of time. Now, the inspection regime has opened up the possibility of an alternative way in which the law-abiding world can restrain the threat from Saddam.

To be sure, it is a small possibility. But it is a hope that has been kept alive by the fact that France and Russia hold the power of veto at the U.N.. It may be that Bush will simply go to war anyway. But there is a crumb of comfort to be gained from the fact that this will be despite the U.N.'s relevance, not because it is irrelevant.--The Independent, London