Return of the 'sea turtles'
Bangkok Post : 20 Dec.06
More and more Chinese who left the country to study abroad are heading back to the land of opportunities, according to a recent article in the ILO's International Labour Review
Brain drains rob developing countries of valuable human talent, as their best and brightest people go abroad to study and opt to stay in the developed world. For many years, the People's Republic of China has been no exception to this phenomenon. In recent years, however, tens of thousand of people trained abroad have been returning to China, according to the International Labour Organisation.
In an article in the ILO's International Labour Review, close to a quarter of the more than 930,000 students who went abroad for studies between 1978 and 2005 returned.
And the numbers of returnees are growing: from about 6,000 in 1995 to almost 35,000 in 2005, according to the China Statistical Yearbook 2006.
The trend is so prevalent that the Chinese have even coined a term to refer to the returnees _ hai gui, or ''sea turtles'' returning to the shores they left to grow up in the sea.
''China is experiencing significant return migration brought on by political stability, improved housing, better business opportunities, more modern equipment and management procedures, higher salaries and other special incentives,'' says David Zweig, director of the Centre on China's Transnational Relations at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and author of the article.
Government policies and inter-city competition for foreign-trained scientists and academics have created a positive atmosphere that encourages returnees, while competition among universities, research laboratories and enterprises has given them excellent incentives.
According to the article, market forces, supported by national government reforms, are the single most important factor bringing people back in the private sector, as tremendous opportunities and rewards await those who have learned a valuable skill or used advanced technologies overseas.
''Also, China has created an environment conducive to foreign direct investment which has attracted many multinational companies, creating excellent jobs for expatriates who wish to return. Increasingly, multinationals based in China are seeking those who left China to study and work overseas,'' explains Mr Zweig.
But government efforts to promote return migration have also created problems. Preferential policies for returnees have created bad blood between the ''sea turtles faction'' and people who have not gone overseas or the ''land turtle faction''.
Interviews with Chinese scientists conducted in 2002 and 2004 showed that almost three times as many locals as returnees were not very satisfied with their housing.
More than twice as many locals as returnees thought that the latter were promoted faster.
"Many hai guis have returned with the perception that an overseas MBA degree will put them in superior positions when compared to the locally trained talents. They have invested much time and funds, and therefore expect to receive high remunerations and fast promotion,'' explains A J Hu, partner of the Shanghai-based JLJ group, Solutions for China Entry & Growth.
A reality check, however, shows that an MBA holder with some relevant work experience can easily command an annual package of US$100,000 (3.6 million baht) in the US, while the same candidate may fetch only 300,000 yuan or $36,500 (1.3 million baht) on returning to China.
Another hurdle that the returnees need to face is the judgment that their fellow Chinese pass on them. Chinese managers who successfully made their way up to management positions without venturing overseas may not appreciate hai guis with overseas education, but little local market knowledge.
As a result, many talented returnees try to open their own businesses.
As companies often expect their employees to perform from the first day, this may prove difficult for returnees lacking this knowledge and local network support after years of absence from China.
In 2003, there were 7,000 Chinese returnees in Shanghai who ended up looking for a job for quite a while _ what is now referred to as hai dai, which can be translated as both ''returnees waiting for jobs'' or ''seaweed which floats and does nothing''.
Nevertheless, China needs good hai guis to return, take root and help the economy grow. It is estimated that China will need at least 2-3 million returnees over the next five years. Apparently only several hundred thousand of them are available now.
''China needs to further develop its strategy on this issue. So far, extensive government efforts and new funding programmes have meshed well with the growing interest of many people to return to China. The result, a 'reverse brain drain', is likely to transform China's scientific, academic and business communities in the coming decade,'' concludes Mr Zweig. ILO FEATURES
More and more Chinese who left the country to study abroad are heading back to the land of opportunities, according to a recent article in the ILO's International Labour Review
Brain drains rob developing countries of valuable human talent, as their best and brightest people go abroad to study and opt to stay in the developed world. For many years, the People's Republic of China has been no exception to this phenomenon. In recent years, however, tens of thousand of people trained abroad have been returning to China, according to the International Labour Organisation.
In an article in the ILO's International Labour Review, close to a quarter of the more than 930,000 students who went abroad for studies between 1978 and 2005 returned.
And the numbers of returnees are growing: from about 6,000 in 1995 to almost 35,000 in 2005, according to the China Statistical Yearbook 2006.
The trend is so prevalent that the Chinese have even coined a term to refer to the returnees _ hai gui, or ''sea turtles'' returning to the shores they left to grow up in the sea.
''China is experiencing significant return migration brought on by political stability, improved housing, better business opportunities, more modern equipment and management procedures, higher salaries and other special incentives,'' says David Zweig, director of the Centre on China's Transnational Relations at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and author of the article.
Government policies and inter-city competition for foreign-trained scientists and academics have created a positive atmosphere that encourages returnees, while competition among universities, research laboratories and enterprises has given them excellent incentives.
According to the article, market forces, supported by national government reforms, are the single most important factor bringing people back in the private sector, as tremendous opportunities and rewards await those who have learned a valuable skill or used advanced technologies overseas.
''Also, China has created an environment conducive to foreign direct investment which has attracted many multinational companies, creating excellent jobs for expatriates who wish to return. Increasingly, multinationals based in China are seeking those who left China to study and work overseas,'' explains Mr Zweig.
But government efforts to promote return migration have also created problems. Preferential policies for returnees have created bad blood between the ''sea turtles faction'' and people who have not gone overseas or the ''land turtle faction''.
Interviews with Chinese scientists conducted in 2002 and 2004 showed that almost three times as many locals as returnees were not very satisfied with their housing.
More than twice as many locals as returnees thought that the latter were promoted faster.
"Many hai guis have returned with the perception that an overseas MBA degree will put them in superior positions when compared to the locally trained talents. They have invested much time and funds, and therefore expect to receive high remunerations and fast promotion,'' explains A J Hu, partner of the Shanghai-based JLJ group, Solutions for China Entry & Growth.
A reality check, however, shows that an MBA holder with some relevant work experience can easily command an annual package of US$100,000 (3.6 million baht) in the US, while the same candidate may fetch only 300,000 yuan or $36,500 (1.3 million baht) on returning to China.
Another hurdle that the returnees need to face is the judgment that their fellow Chinese pass on them. Chinese managers who successfully made their way up to management positions without venturing overseas may not appreciate hai guis with overseas education, but little local market knowledge.
As a result, many talented returnees try to open their own businesses.
As companies often expect their employees to perform from the first day, this may prove difficult for returnees lacking this knowledge and local network support after years of absence from China.
In 2003, there were 7,000 Chinese returnees in Shanghai who ended up looking for a job for quite a while _ what is now referred to as hai dai, which can be translated as both ''returnees waiting for jobs'' or ''seaweed which floats and does nothing''.
Nevertheless, China needs good hai guis to return, take root and help the economy grow. It is estimated that China will need at least 2-3 million returnees over the next five years. Apparently only several hundred thousand of them are available now.
''China needs to further develop its strategy on this issue. So far, extensive government efforts and new funding programmes have meshed well with the growing interest of many people to return to China. The result, a 'reverse brain drain', is likely to transform China's scientific, academic and business communities in the coming decade,'' concludes Mr Zweig. ILO FEATURES
A tale of two Bangladeshi ladies
Politics in Bangladesh, the world's third largest Muslim nation, revolves around two ladies who, for the past 15 years, have refused to even speak with each other.
Both Begum Khaleda Zia, who stepped down from office as prime minister in October on completion of a five-year term, and her political rival Sheikh Hasina Wajed, entered Bangladesh's turbulent and often bloody politics through a route familiar in Asia -- public sympathy following putsches that eliminated powerful male relatives.
And now, in the run up to general elections set for January, the ‘Battle of the Begums (ladies)', is turning red hot once again.
It is easy to believe that the rivalry is the result of personal feuds, but analysts say it is aligned with a larger political struggle and that the two have no choice but to maintain a relationship of vitriolic hatred.
Wajed and Zia, head the two most important political parties, the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) respectively, have served either as prime minister or as opposition leader since 1991, following the ouster of the military dictator H.M. Ershad and the reintroduction of popular democracy.
While Hasina Wajed inherited the leadership of the Awami League from her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Khaleda Zia heads the party created by her husband Ziaur Rahman -- a military general turned politician.
Over the years, the rivalry has resulted in hundreds of deaths, in anything from street fights to vigilante killings. The latest violence, raging for the past three weeks, has been over the formation of a neutral, interim caretaker government that would be responsible for conducting the elections.
While Hasina Wajed and her party have acquiesced to the self-appointment of President Iajuddin Ahmed as head of the caretaker government, they want him to prove his neutrality by sacking chief elections commissioner M. A. Aziz and his three deputies on Monday.
"We'll not join the polls unless Aziz and his deputies are removed," Hasina Wajed warned after branding the poll body chief and his deputies as biased in favour of the BNP.
Countered Khaleda Zia: "We'll not join the polls and initiate streets agitation if Aziz and the other commissioners are removedà It'll be unconstitutional."
"This is not mere a personal rivalry between two ladies. Rather, the whole country has become the hapless victim of a crude power struggle, devoid of democratic principles - these are two rival political camps that are incidentally led by two women. Things would not have been different, if the two parties were led by two men," Nurul Kabir, editor of the English language daily ‘New Age', told IPS.
"Since the two political camps are crudely fighting each other without any set rules of the game, the fate of their struggle (on the recent issues) would eventually be decided on the streets," Kabir, a respected political analyst, said. "As regards a pro-people solution to the crises, it would depend on a comprehensive reform of the whole political system, which still seems a far cry," he added.
The people saw the two leaders and their parties cooperate and even share the political platform only once -- when they joined hands to lead a popular movement against the Ershad regime.
At other times, they accuse each other of distorting the country's history by defacing the persons from whom they had inherited their political legacies and also of distorting democracy in a country that came into being only in 1971.
The two women have often hurled bitter personal insults at each other with many of their followers taking up the cue -- with added acrimony and frequent violence.
On Sunday, Tarique Rahman, the eldest son of Khaleda Zia, filed a defamation suit in a Dhaka court against Sheikh Hasina for derogatory remarks against him.
"The former prime minister's son has become angry as he has been unmaskedà I also demand a probe into how Tarique Rahman became a millionaire," said Abdul Jalil, the general secretary of Awami League.
Wajed's father Mujibur Rahman organised the country's war of independence which resulted in the birth of Bangladesh,seceeding from Pakistan.
Popularly known as ‘Bangabandhu' (the friend of Bengal), Mujibur Rahman along with most of his family members were assassinated in a military coup in August 1975. Hasina Wajed and a sister survived because they were in Germany at that time.
Hasina Wajed believes, and has said so on many occasions, that Khaleda Zia's husband was involved in the killing of her father, although he was never indicted in a court of law.
Ziaur Rehman became president in 1977 but was himself assassinated in a military coup in 1981.
The hostility goes to such extent that Khaleda Zia celebrates her birthday when Hasina Wajed observes the death anniversary of her father and other family members on Aug. 15.
"We never heard of Khaleda Zia's birthday falling on Aug. 15 until 90s," said Shahidul Alam, a school teacher in Dhaka. "It was reported in the media that her marriage and school certificates show different dates of her birth. This she did only when Awami League came to power and officially started observing Aug. 15 as national mourning day," he said.
"The feud didn't spare the school children even," Alam added. "When Khaleda Zia first came to power in 1991, the government changed the school text books to portray Ziaur Rahman as the hero of the war of independence. When the Awami League returned to power in 1996, it rewrote the books to describe Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the man who proclaimed the country's independence and led the war of liberation," he said.
After Zia returned to power in 2001, it was her turn to get the text books rewritten. The BNP maintains that it was her husband who announced the proclamation of independence over radio, initiating the war, although the Awami League version says that Ziaur Rahman, then a major in the army, only read out the proclamation on behalf of Mujibur Rahman who was then in the custody of the Pakistan army. "When both Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman were alive, they never debated the issue," said a retired general of the Bangladesh army M Sakhawat Hussain.
Portraits of Mujibur Rahman, were removed from government offices after his assassination in 1975 but reappeared in 1996 under a law making it mandatory to display them in all government offices. Also currency notes with his picture on them were back in circulation.
When Zia returned to power, she revoked the law and the bank notes were gradually withdrawn.
The BNP introduced a national holiday on Nov. 7 as ‘National Revolution and Solidarity Day', an uprising of people and soldiers that paved the way for Ziaur Rahman to come to power in 1977. Hasina Wajed cancelled the holiday when she became premier.
"The two ladies could not sit together even on questions of national security in the last 15 years," said Sakhawat, who is widely quoted on national defence and security issues, told IPS.
Sakhawat believes that Islamists have taken advantage of the rivalry between the two ladies and their political formations to make inroads into the country. "I don't say the ladies are radicals or extremistsà but neither of them could ignore Islam as means of making political gains in Muslim-majority Bangladesh," he said.
According to Sakhawat, Islamist radicals grew because, while in power, neither political party helped with proper investigations and ignored intelligence reports which warned of rising extremism.
Indeed the BNP has been in power over the last five years with the support of Islamist parties and many say this made Khaleda Zia turn a blind eye to violent militancy which was said to have international connections.
As soon as the elections were declared, a sizeable faction of the BNP broke away to form the Liberal Democratic Party, accusing the parent of turning into an Islamic fundamentalist party and also indulging in corruption.
Bangladesh drew international attention, in August 2005, when Islamists carried out a series of near-simultaneous bombings across the country in a demonstration of their newfound power and influence.
With international pressure growing, the government cracked down on the Jamayetul Mujahideen Bangladesh group, arresting its top leaders and bringing them to trial resulting in some of them being awarded the death sentence.
But typically, the two leaders have been blaming each other for the rise in fundamentalism and violent militancy in this densely populated country of 145 million people, who rate among the world's poorest. (IPS 20 Nov.06)
Both Begum Khaleda Zia, who stepped down from office as prime minister in October on completion of a five-year term, and her political rival Sheikh Hasina Wajed, entered Bangladesh's turbulent and often bloody politics through a route familiar in Asia -- public sympathy following putsches that eliminated powerful male relatives.
And now, in the run up to general elections set for January, the ‘Battle of the Begums (ladies)', is turning red hot once again.
It is easy to believe that the rivalry is the result of personal feuds, but analysts say it is aligned with a larger political struggle and that the two have no choice but to maintain a relationship of vitriolic hatred.
Wajed and Zia, head the two most important political parties, the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) respectively, have served either as prime minister or as opposition leader since 1991, following the ouster of the military dictator H.M. Ershad and the reintroduction of popular democracy.
While Hasina Wajed inherited the leadership of the Awami League from her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Khaleda Zia heads the party created by her husband Ziaur Rahman -- a military general turned politician.
Over the years, the rivalry has resulted in hundreds of deaths, in anything from street fights to vigilante killings. The latest violence, raging for the past three weeks, has been over the formation of a neutral, interim caretaker government that would be responsible for conducting the elections.
While Hasina Wajed and her party have acquiesced to the self-appointment of President Iajuddin Ahmed as head of the caretaker government, they want him to prove his neutrality by sacking chief elections commissioner M. A. Aziz and his three deputies on Monday.
"We'll not join the polls unless Aziz and his deputies are removed," Hasina Wajed warned after branding the poll body chief and his deputies as biased in favour of the BNP.
Countered Khaleda Zia: "We'll not join the polls and initiate streets agitation if Aziz and the other commissioners are removedà It'll be unconstitutional."
"This is not mere a personal rivalry between two ladies. Rather, the whole country has become the hapless victim of a crude power struggle, devoid of democratic principles - these are two rival political camps that are incidentally led by two women. Things would not have been different, if the two parties were led by two men," Nurul Kabir, editor of the English language daily ‘New Age', told IPS.
"Since the two political camps are crudely fighting each other without any set rules of the game, the fate of their struggle (on the recent issues) would eventually be decided on the streets," Kabir, a respected political analyst, said. "As regards a pro-people solution to the crises, it would depend on a comprehensive reform of the whole political system, which still seems a far cry," he added.
The people saw the two leaders and their parties cooperate and even share the political platform only once -- when they joined hands to lead a popular movement against the Ershad regime.
At other times, they accuse each other of distorting the country's history by defacing the persons from whom they had inherited their political legacies and also of distorting democracy in a country that came into being only in 1971.
The two women have often hurled bitter personal insults at each other with many of their followers taking up the cue -- with added acrimony and frequent violence.
On Sunday, Tarique Rahman, the eldest son of Khaleda Zia, filed a defamation suit in a Dhaka court against Sheikh Hasina for derogatory remarks against him.
"The former prime minister's son has become angry as he has been unmaskedà I also demand a probe into how Tarique Rahman became a millionaire," said Abdul Jalil, the general secretary of Awami League.
Wajed's father Mujibur Rahman organised the country's war of independence which resulted in the birth of Bangladesh,seceeding from Pakistan.
Popularly known as ‘Bangabandhu' (the friend of Bengal), Mujibur Rahman along with most of his family members were assassinated in a military coup in August 1975. Hasina Wajed and a sister survived because they were in Germany at that time.
Hasina Wajed believes, and has said so on many occasions, that Khaleda Zia's husband was involved in the killing of her father, although he was never indicted in a court of law.
Ziaur Rehman became president in 1977 but was himself assassinated in a military coup in 1981.
The hostility goes to such extent that Khaleda Zia celebrates her birthday when Hasina Wajed observes the death anniversary of her father and other family members on Aug. 15.
"We never heard of Khaleda Zia's birthday falling on Aug. 15 until 90s," said Shahidul Alam, a school teacher in Dhaka. "It was reported in the media that her marriage and school certificates show different dates of her birth. This she did only when Awami League came to power and officially started observing Aug. 15 as national mourning day," he said.
"The feud didn't spare the school children even," Alam added. "When Khaleda Zia first came to power in 1991, the government changed the school text books to portray Ziaur Rahman as the hero of the war of independence. When the Awami League returned to power in 1996, it rewrote the books to describe Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the man who proclaimed the country's independence and led the war of liberation," he said.
After Zia returned to power in 2001, it was her turn to get the text books rewritten. The BNP maintains that it was her husband who announced the proclamation of independence over radio, initiating the war, although the Awami League version says that Ziaur Rahman, then a major in the army, only read out the proclamation on behalf of Mujibur Rahman who was then in the custody of the Pakistan army. "When both Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman were alive, they never debated the issue," said a retired general of the Bangladesh army M Sakhawat Hussain.
Portraits of Mujibur Rahman, were removed from government offices after his assassination in 1975 but reappeared in 1996 under a law making it mandatory to display them in all government offices. Also currency notes with his picture on them were back in circulation.
When Zia returned to power, she revoked the law and the bank notes were gradually withdrawn.
The BNP introduced a national holiday on Nov. 7 as ‘National Revolution and Solidarity Day', an uprising of people and soldiers that paved the way for Ziaur Rahman to come to power in 1977. Hasina Wajed cancelled the holiday when she became premier.
"The two ladies could not sit together even on questions of national security in the last 15 years," said Sakhawat, who is widely quoted on national defence and security issues, told IPS.
Sakhawat believes that Islamists have taken advantage of the rivalry between the two ladies and their political formations to make inroads into the country. "I don't say the ladies are radicals or extremistsà but neither of them could ignore Islam as means of making political gains in Muslim-majority Bangladesh," he said.
According to Sakhawat, Islamist radicals grew because, while in power, neither political party helped with proper investigations and ignored intelligence reports which warned of rising extremism.
Indeed the BNP has been in power over the last five years with the support of Islamist parties and many say this made Khaleda Zia turn a blind eye to violent militancy which was said to have international connections.
As soon as the elections were declared, a sizeable faction of the BNP broke away to form the Liberal Democratic Party, accusing the parent of turning into an Islamic fundamentalist party and also indulging in corruption.
Bangladesh drew international attention, in August 2005, when Islamists carried out a series of near-simultaneous bombings across the country in a demonstration of their newfound power and influence.
With international pressure growing, the government cracked down on the Jamayetul Mujahideen Bangladesh group, arresting its top leaders and bringing them to trial resulting in some of them being awarded the death sentence.
But typically, the two leaders have been blaming each other for the rise in fundamentalism and violent militancy in this densely populated country of 145 million people, who rate among the world's poorest. (IPS 20 Nov.06)
Migrant workers 'often locked up'
Migrant workers 'often locked up'
Report reveals exploitation and physical abuse of foreigners by Thai employers
A report into migrant labour says employers believe imported workers do not deserve the same rights as Thais.
The study published yesterday said employers restricted movement of their migrant staff, including locking them up at night.
These and other troubling findings are included in the report "The Mekong Challenge - Underpaid, Overworked and Overlooked: The realities of young migrant workers in Thailand".
It was conducted by the Institute for Population and Social Research at Mahidol University with the support of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). It examines the exploitation of migrant labour and is part of a series on human trafficking and labour migration in the Greater Mekong Subregion.
The report said 60 per cent of domestic workers were forbidden from leaving their workplaces.
Restriction of movement was imposed on 43 per cent of workers in the agriculture, fishing and manufacturing sectors. Employers guaranteed their migrant staff could not go anywhere by confiscating identity cards.
Most migrant workers involved in the study were from Burma. There were a small number of labourers from Laos and Cambodia. The survey was conducted between February and October last year.
Almost 700 workers in Bangkok, Nakhon Pathom, Samut Sakhon, Chiang Mai and Tak were interviewed. They were employed in four sectors.
Researchers interviewed employers and job-placement agencies.
"Some 70 per cent of employers said migrant workers should not leave the workplace," ILO consultant and research director Elaine Pearson said.
About half the employers in all sectors agreed "migrants should be locked up at nights to ensure they do not escape", the report said.
Eight per cent of migrant domestic helpers complained employers locked them up.
However, the report noted that mobile telephones had allowed migrants, especially domestic workers, a means of communication.
Key indicators of exploitation faced by migrants included physical violence and non-payment of wages.
Between seven per cent and nine per cent of fishing, manufacturing and domestic workers reported physical abuse by employers.
Forty-one per cent of migrant domestic helpers earned Bt1,000 or less a month.
Pearson said that "50 per cent of employers believe migrant workers should not have the same rights as Thai workers".
The report may contradict a commonly held belief that job-placement agencies are often migrant-labour traffickers. It found less than 10 per cent of migrants had secured jobs through agencies.
The report makes 29 recommendations to the government and agencies.
Among them is the need for a public-awareness campaign about the shortage of migrant workers and ways in which their communities can live in this country in a "positive, peaceful and nurturing way that benefits both locals and migrants".
Subhatra Bhumiprabhas
The Nation 14 Dec.2006
Report reveals exploitation and physical abuse of foreigners by Thai employers
A report into migrant labour says employers believe imported workers do not deserve the same rights as Thais.
The study published yesterday said employers restricted movement of their migrant staff, including locking them up at night.
These and other troubling findings are included in the report "The Mekong Challenge - Underpaid, Overworked and Overlooked: The realities of young migrant workers in Thailand".
It was conducted by the Institute for Population and Social Research at Mahidol University with the support of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). It examines the exploitation of migrant labour and is part of a series on human trafficking and labour migration in the Greater Mekong Subregion.
The report said 60 per cent of domestic workers were forbidden from leaving their workplaces.
Restriction of movement was imposed on 43 per cent of workers in the agriculture, fishing and manufacturing sectors. Employers guaranteed their migrant staff could not go anywhere by confiscating identity cards.
Most migrant workers involved in the study were from Burma. There were a small number of labourers from Laos and Cambodia. The survey was conducted between February and October last year.
Almost 700 workers in Bangkok, Nakhon Pathom, Samut Sakhon, Chiang Mai and Tak were interviewed. They were employed in four sectors.
Researchers interviewed employers and job-placement agencies.
"Some 70 per cent of employers said migrant workers should not leave the workplace," ILO consultant and research director Elaine Pearson said.
About half the employers in all sectors agreed "migrants should be locked up at nights to ensure they do not escape", the report said.
Eight per cent of migrant domestic helpers complained employers locked them up.
However, the report noted that mobile telephones had allowed migrants, especially domestic workers, a means of communication.
Key indicators of exploitation faced by migrants included physical violence and non-payment of wages.
Between seven per cent and nine per cent of fishing, manufacturing and domestic workers reported physical abuse by employers.
Forty-one per cent of migrant domestic helpers earned Bt1,000 or less a month.
Pearson said that "50 per cent of employers believe migrant workers should not have the same rights as Thai workers".
The report may contradict a commonly held belief that job-placement agencies are often migrant-labour traffickers. It found less than 10 per cent of migrants had secured jobs through agencies.
The report makes 29 recommendations to the government and agencies.
Among them is the need for a public-awareness campaign about the shortage of migrant workers and ways in which their communities can live in this country in a "positive, peaceful and nurturing way that benefits both locals and migrants".
Subhatra Bhumiprabhas
The Nation 14 Dec.2006
More companies using child labour
Bangkok Post 14 Dec.2006
PENCHAN CHAROENSUTHIPAN
Immigrant child workers are the most sought-after by Thai employers because they make up a low-paid and controllable workforce, according to a recent study by Mahidol University's Institute for Population and Social Research. Sureeporn Panpueng, a researcher at the institute, said employers want to save production costs and avoid labour shortages, so they prefer hiring alien workers, especially young children.
However, the young immigrant workers inevitably experience longer working hours and have poor access to the welfare they deserve and are hired on low wages.
According to the research, 82% of young migrant employees are domestic workers, 45% work in the fishing industry and 19% work in factories.
All of those questioned said they have to work more than 12 hours a day and one in three said they work without a break.
Elaine Pearson, project representative for Anti-Slavery on Children and Women in the Mekong Region, said employers generally have the mistaken belief that alien workers should not be entitled to the same social welfare as Thai workers and should be under close control.
Therefore, labour rights activists have suggested the government review an act on immigrant labour protection to cover the workforce in the agricultural, fishing and household sectors.
Sombat Niwetrat from the Employment Department said immigration authorities had arrested more than 130,000 illegal immigrants in recent years, which was seen as indicative of the higher demand for them to enter the country.
Mr Sombat said 90% of those caught vowed to come back to Thailand no matter what happens.
Saisuree Chutikul, chairwoman of the Committee Against Trafficking in Children and Women, recommended social workers from NGOs play a larger role in the Foreign Workers Administration Committee.
PENCHAN CHAROENSUTHIPAN
Immigrant child workers are the most sought-after by Thai employers because they make up a low-paid and controllable workforce, according to a recent study by Mahidol University's Institute for Population and Social Research. Sureeporn Panpueng, a researcher at the institute, said employers want to save production costs and avoid labour shortages, so they prefer hiring alien workers, especially young children.
However, the young immigrant workers inevitably experience longer working hours and have poor access to the welfare they deserve and are hired on low wages.
According to the research, 82% of young migrant employees are domestic workers, 45% work in the fishing industry and 19% work in factories.
All of those questioned said they have to work more than 12 hours a day and one in three said they work without a break.
Elaine Pearson, project representative for Anti-Slavery on Children and Women in the Mekong Region, said employers generally have the mistaken belief that alien workers should not be entitled to the same social welfare as Thai workers and should be under close control.
Therefore, labour rights activists have suggested the government review an act on immigrant labour protection to cover the workforce in the agricultural, fishing and household sectors.
Sombat Niwetrat from the Employment Department said immigration authorities had arrested more than 130,000 illegal immigrants in recent years, which was seen as indicative of the higher demand for them to enter the country.
Mr Sombat said 90% of those caught vowed to come back to Thailand no matter what happens.
Saisuree Chutikul, chairwoman of the Committee Against Trafficking in Children and Women, recommended social workers from NGOs play a larger role in the Foreign Workers Administration Committee.
India's 'nuclear liberation'
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - With the US Congress approving legislation that allows civilian nuclear trade with India, a new era in India's nuclear relationship with the world has begun. While there is much jubilation in India over the US legislation - it paves the way to ending India's three-decade-long nuclear isolation and will enable it to purchase nuclear fuel and technology - sections in India's scientific and strategic community remain concerned.
However, it will be at least another six months before India can begin purchasing nuclear fuel and technologies. Several further steps remain. India and the United States will now have to finalize the bilateral 123 Agreement. New Delhi will have to sign India-specific safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And the 45-country Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has to give its nod to lifting the ban on international nuclear commerce with India.
The 123 Agreement is so called because Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 establishes an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation.
Diplomats and lobbyists are patting themselves on their backs for having accomplished what seemed nearly impossible even a few weeks ago - getting the necessary enabling legislation passed through Congress. New Delhi is relieved that several of the concerns it had raised with regard to provisions in bills passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate have been addressed in the conference committee, which ironed out differences in the bills passed by the two houses.
Much of the language that was jarring has been deleted or diluted. For instance, the provision in the House of Representatives' bill that made it binding on the US to stop fuel supplies to India by other countries should it stop its own supplies has been done away with.
And the Senate's insistence on "annual certification" by the US administration that India is complying with all the conditions has been watered down to an annual "assessment" that the US government does in the case of several other laws. The controversial demand that India dovetails its Iran policy to US concerns over its nuclear program has been made a non-binding clause in the legislation.
C Raja Mohan, strategic-affairs editor with the Indian Express, has described the US legislation removing restrictions of nuclear trade as India's "nuclear liberation". It "has not only freed India from three and a half decades of nuclear bondage, but also met two of India's very important strategic objectives - breaking the nuclear parity with Pakistan and establishing strategic equivalence with China".
Mohan points out that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime had denied India cooperation both on nuclear weapons and on civil nuclear energy. Now the administration of US President George W Bush has come around to accepting that India should have both. Besides, "in declaring that this exemption from global nuclear rules is only for India and that a similar favor will not be extended to Pakistan, Congress broke the long-standing sense of nuclear parity between New Delhi and Islamabad. In accepting that New Delhi is a nuclear-weapon power, and making special rules for civilian nuclear cooperation with it, the US has also established a practical nuclear equivalence between India and China."
But several scientists and analysts do not buy into this argument. They are not impressed with the legislation. They argue that language has been tweaked and clauses shifted around from one section to another and that by and large India's concerns remain.
According to P K Iyengar, former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, the legislation aims at indirectly making India party to the NPT, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) without India signing them. He pointed out that the cooperation would be terminated if India conducted a nuclear test. "It is impossible to have a minimum credible deterrent without conducting nuclear tests," he said. There is concern too over end-use monitoring by the US.
Proponents of the nuclear deal in India are hailing it for ending the "nuclear apartheid of the past 30 years". They are pointing out that the legislation, while not saying so explicitly, deals with India as a nuclear-weapons power.
This is not so, says Bharat Karnad, research fellow in the Center for Policy Research in Delhi and author of Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy. "India continues to be treated as a non-nuclear state," Karnad told Asia Times Online.
It is being denied full civilian nuclear cooperation. Access to cutting-edge technologies relating to enrichment, reprocessing of spent fuel, and heavy-water production has been refused. "Besides, the requirement that India accept safeguards in perpetuity on its civilian nuclear reactors is something that is applicable to non-nuclear-weapon states," Karnad argued.
The US legislation removing restrictions on nuclear cooperation with India is important because this is a requirement for the NSG to change its guidelines. "Once the NSG guidelines are changed India will be able to do deals with other NSG members," said a retired diplomat, adding that this will give India more choice.
Noted strategic-affairs expert K Subrahmanyam pointed out: "The clauses in the 123 Agreement will be binding on India only if it buys nuclear reactors and material from the US, and not if it gets NSG clearance to buy them from France and Russia, for instance. This is the strategy China has adopted. France and Russia supply reactors and technology on the basis of NSG guidelines and under IAEA safeguards, and do not impose the kind of conditions the US Congress tends to impose."
But will the other NSG members be willing to strike deals with India that disregard US concerns? Karnad maintains that the agreement Washington reaches with India will determine how the other NSG members respond to India.
The US legislation is not binding on India. "This legislation is entirely an American affair," said Subrahmanyam. It is the bilateral 123 Agreement that Delhi and Washington will now have to finalize that will be binding on India. So it is the 123 Agreement that is "the real test".
India seems to be hoping that issues of concern that remain in the US legislation will be removed in the 123 document. "We have to work for further negotiations on the 123 Agreement. If that is modified in favor of India, then we will go ahead in signing the deal," said M R Srinivasan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Government sources say clauses in the legislation such as the non-binding one that calls on India to participate actively in US efforts to dissuade and contain Iran for its nuclear program are "not overly worrying" as they will not find a place in the 123 Agreement.
But such hopes seem misplaced. Skirting the legislation in the 123 document is not going to be easy. According to Karnad, "The 123 Agreement will have to adhere to all the parameters in the legislation and cannot be independent of what Congress has legislated as the public law of the land." Since the 123 Agreement will go to Congress for approval, there is no way the agreement can skirt the legislation as it would then be rejected by Congress.
This point is underscored by South Asia analyst Teresita Schaffer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It is "important not to insert anything in the agreement that appears to contradict the provisions of the final nuclear bill", she said.
The drama will now shift to New Delhi, where India's Parliament is in session. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party has pointed out that "the purpose of the deal is to impose on India "conditionalities that are worse than those incorporated in the NPT and CTBT, in perpetuity and without an exit clause". For its part, the left can be expected to focus its attack on the deal undermining India's sovereignty in foreign policy.
Meanwhile, Indian diplomats will step up efforts to win support of NSG member countries. For some months, they have been especially lobbying countries with reservations about India's nuclear program. They have been stressing India's impeccable track record with regard to non-proliferation and its responsible actions in unilaterally declaring a moratorium on nuclear testing and putting in place a no-first-use doctrine.
Indian diplomats say they have been pretty successful so far, having won support of such countries as Japan, Brazil and South Africa that had misgivings earlier. But a few members remain to be converted, and these will be the focus of the effort in the coming months.
Although the nuclear deal is not done yet, US nuclear-power companies have already started lining up to do business with India. Early this month, the largest trade mission from the United States to any country visited Mumbai. Of the mission's 250 members, 30 were representatives of 14 US firms in the nuclear sector.
Indian officials who will negotiate the 123 Agreement would do well to bear in mind that the US is as keen as India to see the deal through. It means very big business for that country, and the US has much to gain from the deal. This should steel India's resolve to stand firm and negotiate hard on the 123 Agreement.
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.
12 Dec. 2006 Asia Times Online
BANGALORE - With the US Congress approving legislation that allows civilian nuclear trade with India, a new era in India's nuclear relationship with the world has begun. While there is much jubilation in India over the US legislation - it paves the way to ending India's three-decade-long nuclear isolation and will enable it to purchase nuclear fuel and technology - sections in India's scientific and strategic community remain concerned.
However, it will be at least another six months before India can begin purchasing nuclear fuel and technologies. Several further steps remain. India and the United States will now have to finalize the bilateral 123 Agreement. New Delhi will have to sign India-specific safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And the 45-country Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has to give its nod to lifting the ban on international nuclear commerce with India.
The 123 Agreement is so called because Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 establishes an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation.
Diplomats and lobbyists are patting themselves on their backs for having accomplished what seemed nearly impossible even a few weeks ago - getting the necessary enabling legislation passed through Congress. New Delhi is relieved that several of the concerns it had raised with regard to provisions in bills passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate have been addressed in the conference committee, which ironed out differences in the bills passed by the two houses.
Much of the language that was jarring has been deleted or diluted. For instance, the provision in the House of Representatives' bill that made it binding on the US to stop fuel supplies to India by other countries should it stop its own supplies has been done away with.
And the Senate's insistence on "annual certification" by the US administration that India is complying with all the conditions has been watered down to an annual "assessment" that the US government does in the case of several other laws. The controversial demand that India dovetails its Iran policy to US concerns over its nuclear program has been made a non-binding clause in the legislation.
C Raja Mohan, strategic-affairs editor with the Indian Express, has described the US legislation removing restrictions of nuclear trade as India's "nuclear liberation". It "has not only freed India from three and a half decades of nuclear bondage, but also met two of India's very important strategic objectives - breaking the nuclear parity with Pakistan and establishing strategic equivalence with China".
Mohan points out that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime had denied India cooperation both on nuclear weapons and on civil nuclear energy. Now the administration of US President George W Bush has come around to accepting that India should have both. Besides, "in declaring that this exemption from global nuclear rules is only for India and that a similar favor will not be extended to Pakistan, Congress broke the long-standing sense of nuclear parity between New Delhi and Islamabad. In accepting that New Delhi is a nuclear-weapon power, and making special rules for civilian nuclear cooperation with it, the US has also established a practical nuclear equivalence between India and China."
But several scientists and analysts do not buy into this argument. They are not impressed with the legislation. They argue that language has been tweaked and clauses shifted around from one section to another and that by and large India's concerns remain.
According to P K Iyengar, former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, the legislation aims at indirectly making India party to the NPT, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) without India signing them. He pointed out that the cooperation would be terminated if India conducted a nuclear test. "It is impossible to have a minimum credible deterrent without conducting nuclear tests," he said. There is concern too over end-use monitoring by the US.
Proponents of the nuclear deal in India are hailing it for ending the "nuclear apartheid of the past 30 years". They are pointing out that the legislation, while not saying so explicitly, deals with India as a nuclear-weapons power.
This is not so, says Bharat Karnad, research fellow in the Center for Policy Research in Delhi and author of Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy. "India continues to be treated as a non-nuclear state," Karnad told Asia Times Online.
It is being denied full civilian nuclear cooperation. Access to cutting-edge technologies relating to enrichment, reprocessing of spent fuel, and heavy-water production has been refused. "Besides, the requirement that India accept safeguards in perpetuity on its civilian nuclear reactors is something that is applicable to non-nuclear-weapon states," Karnad argued.
The US legislation removing restrictions on nuclear cooperation with India is important because this is a requirement for the NSG to change its guidelines. "Once the NSG guidelines are changed India will be able to do deals with other NSG members," said a retired diplomat, adding that this will give India more choice.
Noted strategic-affairs expert K Subrahmanyam pointed out: "The clauses in the 123 Agreement will be binding on India only if it buys nuclear reactors and material from the US, and not if it gets NSG clearance to buy them from France and Russia, for instance. This is the strategy China has adopted. France and Russia supply reactors and technology on the basis of NSG guidelines and under IAEA safeguards, and do not impose the kind of conditions the US Congress tends to impose."
But will the other NSG members be willing to strike deals with India that disregard US concerns? Karnad maintains that the agreement Washington reaches with India will determine how the other NSG members respond to India.
The US legislation is not binding on India. "This legislation is entirely an American affair," said Subrahmanyam. It is the bilateral 123 Agreement that Delhi and Washington will now have to finalize that will be binding on India. So it is the 123 Agreement that is "the real test".
India seems to be hoping that issues of concern that remain in the US legislation will be removed in the 123 document. "We have to work for further negotiations on the 123 Agreement. If that is modified in favor of India, then we will go ahead in signing the deal," said M R Srinivasan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Government sources say clauses in the legislation such as the non-binding one that calls on India to participate actively in US efforts to dissuade and contain Iran for its nuclear program are "not overly worrying" as they will not find a place in the 123 Agreement.
But such hopes seem misplaced. Skirting the legislation in the 123 document is not going to be easy. According to Karnad, "The 123 Agreement will have to adhere to all the parameters in the legislation and cannot be independent of what Congress has legislated as the public law of the land." Since the 123 Agreement will go to Congress for approval, there is no way the agreement can skirt the legislation as it would then be rejected by Congress.
This point is underscored by South Asia analyst Teresita Schaffer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It is "important not to insert anything in the agreement that appears to contradict the provisions of the final nuclear bill", she said.
The drama will now shift to New Delhi, where India's Parliament is in session. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party has pointed out that "the purpose of the deal is to impose on India "conditionalities that are worse than those incorporated in the NPT and CTBT, in perpetuity and without an exit clause". For its part, the left can be expected to focus its attack on the deal undermining India's sovereignty in foreign policy.
Meanwhile, Indian diplomats will step up efforts to win support of NSG member countries. For some months, they have been especially lobbying countries with reservations about India's nuclear program. They have been stressing India's impeccable track record with regard to non-proliferation and its responsible actions in unilaterally declaring a moratorium on nuclear testing and putting in place a no-first-use doctrine.
Indian diplomats say they have been pretty successful so far, having won support of such countries as Japan, Brazil and South Africa that had misgivings earlier. But a few members remain to be converted, and these will be the focus of the effort in the coming months.
Although the nuclear deal is not done yet, US nuclear-power companies have already started lining up to do business with India. Early this month, the largest trade mission from the United States to any country visited Mumbai. Of the mission's 250 members, 30 were representatives of 14 US firms in the nuclear sector.
Indian officials who will negotiate the 123 Agreement would do well to bear in mind that the US is as keen as India to see the deal through. It means very big business for that country, and the US has much to gain from the deal. This should steel India's resolve to stand firm and negotiate hard on the 123 Agreement.
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.
12 Dec. 2006 Asia Times Online
Every visitor to US to be assessed as 'risk' secretly
Washington - Starting Monday every person entering and leaving the United States will be evaluated as terrorist threats without their knowledge, and the results will be held for 40 years, according to the US Department of Homeland Security.
A US civil liberties group warned against the plan on Thursday, calling it "invasive."
The US "government is preparing to give millions of law-abiding citizens 'risk assessment' scores that will follow them throughout their lives," said David Sobel, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"If that wasn't frightening enough, none of us will have the ability to know our own score, or to challenge it," he said in a statement.
A Homeland Security spokesman confirmed that computers of the Automated Targeting System will do the screening.
"We use it to improve the collection, use and analyze intelligence that would help us target and identify potential terrorists or terrorist weapons from entering the US," department spokesman Jarrod Agen told AFP.
The US government quietly placed notice of the program in the November 2 Federal Register.
"The Automated Targeting System performs screening of both inbound and outbound cargo, travelers and conveyances," the notice said.
The foundation calls the system an "invasive and unprecedented data-mining system," in which computers look for suspicious persons and score them as potential risks by trolling information from a multitude of sources, such as airline passenger information, the US Treasury, the Commerce Department, credit card numbers and the meals eaten on flights all help add up the score.
Travelers may not review -- or challenge -- their scores for the next 40 years, according to the November 2 notice.
However, "routine uses of the records" are: sharing with "federal, state, local, tribal or foreign government agencies maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, which has requested information relevant or necessary to the requesting agency's clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the disclosure," the notice said.
Persons who may see the information on a "routine" basis are: "a court magistrate, or administrative tribunal"; "third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation"; an "agency, organisation or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations"; "a Congressional office"; and "contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students and others," according to the announcement.
Agence France Presse
4 Dec.2006
A US civil liberties group warned against the plan on Thursday, calling it "invasive."
The US "government is preparing to give millions of law-abiding citizens 'risk assessment' scores that will follow them throughout their lives," said David Sobel, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"If that wasn't frightening enough, none of us will have the ability to know our own score, or to challenge it," he said in a statement.
A Homeland Security spokesman confirmed that computers of the Automated Targeting System will do the screening.
"We use it to improve the collection, use and analyze intelligence that would help us target and identify potential terrorists or terrorist weapons from entering the US," department spokesman Jarrod Agen told AFP.
The US government quietly placed notice of the program in the November 2 Federal Register.
"The Automated Targeting System performs screening of both inbound and outbound cargo, travelers and conveyances," the notice said.
The foundation calls the system an "invasive and unprecedented data-mining system," in which computers look for suspicious persons and score them as potential risks by trolling information from a multitude of sources, such as airline passenger information, the US Treasury, the Commerce Department, credit card numbers and the meals eaten on flights all help add up the score.
Travelers may not review -- or challenge -- their scores for the next 40 years, according to the November 2 notice.
However, "routine uses of the records" are: sharing with "federal, state, local, tribal or foreign government agencies maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, which has requested information relevant or necessary to the requesting agency's clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the disclosure," the notice said.
Persons who may see the information on a "routine" basis are: "a court magistrate, or administrative tribunal"; "third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation"; an "agency, organisation or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations"; "a Congressional office"; and "contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students and others," according to the announcement.
Agence France Presse
4 Dec.2006
What now in the Middle East?
ANALYSIS / FAILURE OF UNITED STATES' MIDEAST POLICY
Bangkok Post 1 Dec.2006
By JOSCHKA FISCHER
The political and security situation in the vast region between the Indus Valley and the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean is a cause for grave concern. When the US intervened militarily in Iraq in 1991, the intention was to effect fundamental change in the entire region. Today it is clear that hardly any aspect of this policy has succeeded. Even the success of free elections in Iraq is threatening to divide rather than unite the country.
The existing power relations in the Middle East have indeed been permanently shaken and, indeed, revolutionised. The effect, however, has not been a domino-like democratisation; instead, we are threatened with a domino effect of descent into chaos.
The decision to go to war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait, back in 1991, marked the beginning of America's role as the sole hegemonic military power in the region. The decision to go to war against Iraq for a second time, and then to occupy the country in March 2003, transformed this hegemony into direct US responsibility for the future of the Middle East.
Two outcomes could flow from America's adopted role as the decisive power in the Middle East. Were the US to succeed in using its military strength, it would create a new, democratic Middle East. But were it, despite its military might, to fail, it would create a power vacuum and destabilise the region. The second scenario, which was foreseeable from the outset, has now become a reality.
The very character of the war in Iraq has been transformed from a democratising mission into a stabilising mission high in casualties and in cost. Instead of the intended radical realignment of power relations in the region, the aim is now to simply maintain the status quo. The most the US can hope at this point is a withdrawal that saves face. The recent elections in America were a referendum on the war in Iraq. Their result in fact set a timetable for the Iraqisation and US withdrawal before the next presidential election.
Behind the all-too-foreseeable end of the American stabilising mission lurks a civil war in Iraq, which threatens to turn into an Arab-Iranian proxy war for dominance in Iraq, the Gulf, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and beyond. Moreover, there is an acute risk that the power vacuum created in Iraq will fuse the Israeli-Arab conflict, Iraq, and Afghanistan into one regional mega-crisis.
In light of America's impending withdrawal, the regional powers are reassessing their interests and objectives. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, and Israel will be the main players. With the Iraq war, the US has lost its unilateral-power position in the Middle East, and elsewhere. In the future, various global powers will be active in the Middle East primarily the US, Russia, China, India. Let's hope Europe is amongst them, because its security is defined there. So at stake is no longer just Iraq, but rather the future of the entire region. We can count ourselves lucky if the emerging chaos can be contained in Iraq.
Washington's realisation that Iraq can no longer be won or even stabilised unless the regional framework changes, has come late _ perhaps too late. The US will have to find agreement with its allies and enter into direct talks with all the other players to try and achieve a new regional consensus.
If this policy shift had taken place a year ago or even early last summer, the prospects would have been better. And with every passing day, America's position in the region is weakening further and the chances of a successful new political strategy become more remote.
The greatest danger stems from Iran, the clear beneficiary of the Iraqi power vacuum. Iran harbours hegemonic ambitions which it seeks to realise by means of its military potential, oil and gas reserves, its nuclear programme, its influence over Shi'ites throughout the region, and its efforts to upset the status quo within the Arab Muslim world.
Yet Iran is also relatively isolated. Its only allies in the region are Syria and Hizbollah. What's more, it is threatened by a de facto anti-Iranian coalition of all other regional powers, united by their fear of Iranian ascendancy.
If the West (America and Europe) acts swiftly, decisively, and with a joint strategy, there remains a chance to stabilise the situation. But to achieve this, it will be necessary to offset, or at least balance, the interests of the most important actors in the region. This means a strategy based on political leverage, not a threat of military intervention or regime change. In their stead must come, on the one hand, direct talks, security guarantees, and support in political and economic integration. To be successful, this strategy also requires a realistic threat of isolation of those who continue to undermine regional stability, as well as substantial progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
A new Middle East policy will thus have to concentrate primarily on four aspects: 1) a comprehensive offer to Syria to detach the country from Iran and settle open conflicts; 2) an offer to Iran for direct talks about the perspective of a full normalisation of relations; 3) a decisive and realistic initiative to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict; 4) a regional security architecture that centres on stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan.
Joschka Fischer was Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005. A leader in the Green Party for nearly 20 years, he is now a visiting professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.
Bangkok Post 1 Dec.2006
By JOSCHKA FISCHER
The political and security situation in the vast region between the Indus Valley and the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean is a cause for grave concern. When the US intervened militarily in Iraq in 1991, the intention was to effect fundamental change in the entire region. Today it is clear that hardly any aspect of this policy has succeeded. Even the success of free elections in Iraq is threatening to divide rather than unite the country.
The existing power relations in the Middle East have indeed been permanently shaken and, indeed, revolutionised. The effect, however, has not been a domino-like democratisation; instead, we are threatened with a domino effect of descent into chaos.
The decision to go to war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait, back in 1991, marked the beginning of America's role as the sole hegemonic military power in the region. The decision to go to war against Iraq for a second time, and then to occupy the country in March 2003, transformed this hegemony into direct US responsibility for the future of the Middle East.
Two outcomes could flow from America's adopted role as the decisive power in the Middle East. Were the US to succeed in using its military strength, it would create a new, democratic Middle East. But were it, despite its military might, to fail, it would create a power vacuum and destabilise the region. The second scenario, which was foreseeable from the outset, has now become a reality.
The very character of the war in Iraq has been transformed from a democratising mission into a stabilising mission high in casualties and in cost. Instead of the intended radical realignment of power relations in the region, the aim is now to simply maintain the status quo. The most the US can hope at this point is a withdrawal that saves face. The recent elections in America were a referendum on the war in Iraq. Their result in fact set a timetable for the Iraqisation and US withdrawal before the next presidential election.
Behind the all-too-foreseeable end of the American stabilising mission lurks a civil war in Iraq, which threatens to turn into an Arab-Iranian proxy war for dominance in Iraq, the Gulf, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and beyond. Moreover, there is an acute risk that the power vacuum created in Iraq will fuse the Israeli-Arab conflict, Iraq, and Afghanistan into one regional mega-crisis.
In light of America's impending withdrawal, the regional powers are reassessing their interests and objectives. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, and Israel will be the main players. With the Iraq war, the US has lost its unilateral-power position in the Middle East, and elsewhere. In the future, various global powers will be active in the Middle East primarily the US, Russia, China, India. Let's hope Europe is amongst them, because its security is defined there. So at stake is no longer just Iraq, but rather the future of the entire region. We can count ourselves lucky if the emerging chaos can be contained in Iraq.
Washington's realisation that Iraq can no longer be won or even stabilised unless the regional framework changes, has come late _ perhaps too late. The US will have to find agreement with its allies and enter into direct talks with all the other players to try and achieve a new regional consensus.
If this policy shift had taken place a year ago or even early last summer, the prospects would have been better. And with every passing day, America's position in the region is weakening further and the chances of a successful new political strategy become more remote.
The greatest danger stems from Iran, the clear beneficiary of the Iraqi power vacuum. Iran harbours hegemonic ambitions which it seeks to realise by means of its military potential, oil and gas reserves, its nuclear programme, its influence over Shi'ites throughout the region, and its efforts to upset the status quo within the Arab Muslim world.
Yet Iran is also relatively isolated. Its only allies in the region are Syria and Hizbollah. What's more, it is threatened by a de facto anti-Iranian coalition of all other regional powers, united by their fear of Iranian ascendancy.
If the West (America and Europe) acts swiftly, decisively, and with a joint strategy, there remains a chance to stabilise the situation. But to achieve this, it will be necessary to offset, or at least balance, the interests of the most important actors in the region. This means a strategy based on political leverage, not a threat of military intervention or regime change. In their stead must come, on the one hand, direct talks, security guarantees, and support in political and economic integration. To be successful, this strategy also requires a realistic threat of isolation of those who continue to undermine regional stability, as well as substantial progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
A new Middle East policy will thus have to concentrate primarily on four aspects: 1) a comprehensive offer to Syria to detach the country from Iran and settle open conflicts; 2) an offer to Iran for direct talks about the perspective of a full normalisation of relations; 3) a decisive and realistic initiative to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict; 4) a regional security architecture that centres on stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan.
Joschka Fischer was Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005. A leader in the Green Party for nearly 20 years, he is now a visiting professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.
