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