Opposing Hoax News dare to be honest and anti provocation

Sunday, 5 August 2018

Breaking: At least 82 dead as earthquake rocks Lombok and Bali


At least 82 people have died after a powerful earthquake rocked the Indonesian tourist islands of Lombok and neighbouring Bali, triggering a tsunami warning just a week after another quake in the same region killed 16 people.

Monday, 30 July 2018

How Beijing is winning control of the South China Sea


Erratic US policy and fraying alliances give China a free hand

SIMON ROUGHNEEN, Asia regional correspondent

Chinese warships and fighter jets take part in a military display in the South China Sea on April 12.   © Reuters

Even by his outspoken standards, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's account of a conversation he had with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, was startling.

During a meeting between the two leaders in Beijing in May 2017, the subject turned to whether the Philippines would seek to drill for oil in a part of the South China Sea claimed by both countries. Duterte said he was given a blunt warning by China's president.

"[Xi's] response to me [was], 'We're friends, we don't want to quarrel with you, we want to maintain the presence of warm relationship, but if you force the issue, we'll go to war," Duterte recounted.

A year later, Duterte was asked for a response to news that China had landed long-range bombers on one of the South China Sea's Paracel Islands -- a milestone that suggests the People's Liberation Army Air Force can easily make the short hop to most of Southeast Asia from its new airstrips. "What's the point of questioning whether the planes there land or not?" Duterte responded.

His refusal to condemn China's military buildup underlines China's success in subduing its rivals in the South China Sea. Since 2013 China has expanded artificial islands and reefs in the sea and subsequently installed a network of runways, missile launchers, barracks and communications facilities.

These military advances have led many to wonder if Beijing has already established unassailable control over the disputed waters. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have overlapping claims to parts of the South China Sea and its islands – claims that are looking increasingly forlorn in the wake of China's military buildup.

"What China is winning is de facto control of nearly the entire South China Sea, including all activities and resources in it, despite the other surrounding Southeast Asian states' respective legal rights and entitlements under international law," said Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea.

At stake is the huge commercial and military leverage that comes with controlling one of the world's most important shipping lanes, through which up to $5 trillion worth of trade passes each year.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis insists that China faces "consequences" for the "militarization" of South China Sea, which he says is being done for "the purposes of intimidation and coercion."

"There are consequences that will continue to come home to roost, so to speak, with China, if they do not find the way to work more collaboratively with all of the nations," Mattis said on June 2 at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, a security conference organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Mac Thornberry, chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, added that the U.S. naval presence means China does not have a free hand in the South China Sea.

"I think you will see more and more nations working together to affirm freedom of navigation through the South China Sea and other international waters," Thornberry told the Nikkei Asian Review.

But what those consequences might be was left unsaid by Mattis, who suggested that there was little prospect of forcing China to give up its growing network of military facilities dotting the sea.

"We all know nobody is ready to invade," he said.

U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis talked up the "Indo-Pacific" strategy in his June 2 speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)

Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "There is no reasonable basis for the U.S. to use military force to push China off its outposts, nor would any country in the region support such an effort."

The U.S. pushback so far has included disinviting China from a major Pacific naval exercise. It also continues to carry out so-called freedom of navigation operations, or FONOPs, the most recent of which took place on May 27. This was followed by U.S. military aircraft flying over the Paracel Islands in early June, a move that prompted a countercharge of "militarization'" against the U.S. by China's Foreign Ministry.

China regards the FONOPs as sabre-rattling and "a challenge to [our] sovereignty," according to Lt. Gen. He Lei, Beijing's lead representative at the Singapore conference.

He restated the government position on troops and weapons on islands in the South China Sea, describing the deployments as an assertion of sovereignty and said that allegations of militarization were "hyped up" by the U.S.

Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana stopped short of endorsing the FONOPs but told the Nikkei Asian Review that "it is our belief that those sea lanes should be left open and free."

In contrast to Duterte's reluctance to confront China, his predecessor as president, Benigno Aquino, was frequently outspoken about China's increasing control of the sea. He pressed a case against Beijing to an arbitration tribunal in 2013 after a protracted naval stand-off the year before around Scarborough Shoal, a rock claimed by both countries and lying about 120 nautical miles off the Luzon coast.

In mid-2016 the tribunal dismissed China's expansive "nine-dash line" claim to much of the South China Sea and its artificial island-building and expansion, all of which the tribunal said contravened the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS.

Duterte said he would not "flaunt" the tribunal outcome, in contrast with his campaign pledge to assert the country's sovereignty -- he even vowed to ride a jet ski to one of China's artificial islands and plant the Philippine flag there. Manila hopes for significant Chinese investment in roads, rail and ports, as part of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative, a multi continent plan outlining China-backed infrastructure upgrades.

Filipino activists rally outside the Chinese Consulate in Manila in February to protest Beijing's continued reclamation activities in the South China Sea.   © Reuters

Defense Secretary Lorenzana emphasized in remarks to the media in Singapore that good relations with China remain a priority, regardless of bilateral disputes. "It is just natural for us to befriend our neighbour. We cannot avoid dealing with China, they are near, [and] many Filipinos, including me, have Chinese blood."

For the Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, there are growing doubts about whether the American navy would protect them in a conflict with China, something Duterte, a brusque critic of the U.S., has questioned publicly.

Mattis, like former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sidestepped a question on that issue in Singapore, saying, "The reason why public figures do not want to give specific answers is that these are complex issues."

American evasiveness is a reminder to the Philippines that the U.S. might not risk war with China over its old ally. "It is debatable whether Filipinos believe that the U.S. will have its back in a conflict with China," Batongbacal of the University of the Philippines said. "Duterte's repeated statements against the reliability of the U.S. as an ally tends to undermine this further."

Duterte's reticence has left Vietnam as the sole claimant willing to speak up. Discussing recent developments in the South China Sea, Vietnamese Defense Minister Gen. Ngo Xuan Lich told the Singapore conference, "Under no circumstances could we excuse militarization by deploying weapons and military hardware over disputed areas against regional commitments."

Lich did not name-check China in his speech, but described "a serious breach to the sovereignty" of another country that "violates international laws, complicates the situation and negatively affects regional peace, stability and security."

As well as hindering oil and gas projects in waters close to Vietnam, China's navy has for several years harassed Vietnamese fishing boats -- as it does around the Philippines -- and continues to occupy islands seized from Vietnam nearly five decades ago.

In 2014, anti-China riots kicked off across Vietnam after China placed an oil rig in South China Sea waters claimed by Hanoi. In early June there were demonstrations against proposals that protesters claimed will give Chinese businesses favoured access in so-called Special Economic Zones in Vietnam.

The Lan Tay gas platform, operated by Rosneft Vietnam, sits in the South China Sea off the Vietnamese coast. China has been hindering Vietnam's oil exploration activities in the sea.   © Reuters

Vietnam's response to potential isolation has been a cautious dalliance with the U.S. In late 2016, shortly before the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, American warships docked in Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay naval base, the first such visit since the former antagonists normalized ties in 1995. That landmark was followed in March this year by the arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier to the central Vietnam city of Danang.

Hanoi recently called for greater Japanese involvement in the region's maritime disputes, perhaps signalling an interest in a wider effort to counter China. But unlike in the Philippines, Vietnam, which like China is a single party communist-run state, is not a U.S. treaty ally. Historical and ideological differences mean that there are limits to how closely Vietnam will align with the U.S.

"I think there is a good momentum with defence cooperation with the U.S. But I don't think that it would immediately mean jumping into the 'American camp,' whatever it means," said Huong Le Thu, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

From Bollywood to Hollywood

The U.S. has sought to widen the array of countries it hopes will join it in countering China's rising influence. During his 12-day swing through Asia in late 2017, Trump peppered his speeches with references to the "Indo-Pacific," dispensing with the long-established "Asia-Pacific" label in favour of a more expansive term first used by Japan.

The "Indo-Pacific" was then mentioned throughout the U.S. National Security Strategy published soon after Trump's Asia trip -- a document that alleged China aims to "challenge American power" and "is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda."

Three days before his Singapore speech, Mattis announced in Hawaii that the U.S. Pacific Command would be renamed the Indo-Pacific Command, describing the expanded theatre as stretching "from Bollywood to Hollywood."

Mattis later added some gravitas to the cinematic catchphrase, saying in Singapore that "standing shoulder to shoulder with India, ASEAN and our treaty allies and other partners, America seeks to build an Indo-Pacific where sovereignty and territorial integrity are safeguarded -- the promise of freedom fulfilled and prosperity prevails for all."

The Trump administration clearly hopes for greater Indian involvement in its efforts to counter China's growing influence. Kori Schake, deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that while "Indo-Pacific isn't yet an established part of the lexicon," the implications of the term are clear.

"India is an Asian power. The countries adopting the term are encouraging India into greater cooperation in maintaining the maritime commons in the Indian and Pacific oceans," said Schake, a former U.S. State Department official.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security conference, in Singapore on June 1. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)

Modi enthusiastically echoed American rhetoric about a "shared vision of an open, stable, secure and prosperous" Indo-Pacific, which he described as "a natural region" -- countering those who wonder if an area stretching from Bollywood to Hollywood might too vast and desperate to be cast into a geopolitical fact on the ground.

But Modi also heaped praise on China, despite its border dispute with India and increasingly close economic ties with Pakistan, India's neighbour and nuclear rival.

"Our cooperation is expanding. Trade is growing. And, we have displayed maturity and wisdom in managing issues and ensuring a peaceful border," Modi said.

China's foreign ministry described Modi's speech as "positive," while one of its military delegation at the Singapore conference gloated that India and the U.S. "have different understandings, different interpretations, of this Indo-Pacific."

China's first domestically designed and built aircraft carrier   © Kyodo

It is perhaps no surprise then that China's rivals in the South China Sea do not yet regard the nascent Indo-Pacific alliance-building as something to pin their hopes on when it comes to controlling of the sea.

"We are witnessing the great power shift toward Asia-Pacific with the 'Indo-Pacific strategy,' Belt and Road Initiative and a series of country grouping[s] in the region," Lich said, cautioning that "the outcomes for the region and the world are somewhat yet to be unveiled."

Lich's Philippine counterpart was even more circumspect, particularly regarding the Indo-Pacific concept. "I have to study it some more," Lorenzana said. "This is a new construct in this area."

Nikkei staff writers Mikhail Flores in Manila and Atsushi Tomiyama in Hanoi contributed to this article.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/How-Beijing-is-winning-control-of-the-South-China-Sea


Thursday, 26 July 2018

Mesut Özil Walks Away from German Team Alleging Racism on a Sad Day for German Football


By Preity Uupala
Observer Staff Writer



Germany's world cup failure blamed on Özil, despite his stellar record over his career
Turkey president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan says today in Ankara that he is glad with Mesut Özil's stance: "I called him on Monday night and we talked. They simply can't stomach the fact that he took a picture with me. His attitude was nationalistic. I kiss his eyes and I stand by him"

One of the most scandalous stories to hit the soccer world was yesterday's news surrounding mid-fielder Mesut Özil's departure from the German national team due to "racial and disrespect". A shocking departure following the 2018 world cup in Russia, of Arsenal star Özil, who also played for Germany and is of Turkish descent.

In a statement, Özil writes: " It is with a heavy heart and after much consideration that because of recent events, I will no longer be playing for Germany at an international level whilst I have this feeling of racism and disrespect"- Mesut Özil.

There may have been accusations that Germany's spectacular failure this world cup can be blamed due to his poor performance. But it seems ludicrous. The German team lost because they played poorly and lost as a collective team. No one player can be blamed and management and coach are equally at fault.

He made a spectacular statement" When we win, I am German; when we lose, I am an immigrant". The issue here is not one of his performance, but a much deeper issue of racism and abuse.

It all started in may 2018 when Özil met and posed for photography with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and signed a t-shirt with the words "For my president". Ozil was quick to justify that this was a courteous gesture on his part and he was not making any sort of political endorsement saying that "It would have been disrespecting the roots of my ancestry", had he not made the gesture. But the photo did not go down well with German media and the German Football Association (FA) who heavily criticized it and left Özil out for a lot of the pre-world cup promo activities.

It is a sad day for Germany because this idea of an integrated German team, one that is inclusive, diverse and respectful is under attack. The fact that one of the most high profile players does not feel comfortable representing the national team makes it a huge story. Özil has always claimed that he has two hearts: one German and one Turkish.

However, these are very tense times for Germany regarding race tensions and a story like this falls right into the arms of those who wish to use it for political gain. It is a shame to see far-right parties like the AFD, use this as a part of their identity politics strategy in an attempt to showcase that diversity and immigration simply don't work. Yes, there are serious issues with immigration and refugee influx, especially where there is no integration or assimilation on the part of those who take refuge. And in many ways, this human refugee experiment has failed Europe and especially Germany creating all sorts of internal conflicts and tensions.

But with Özil, this is hardly the case here. Far from bringing a refugee, he was born in Germany as was his father, speaks perfect German, grew up here and for all intents and purposes is very German, he is an example of the diversity that has triumphed not failed.
               
What makes things worse is that other foreign players in the German national team like Miroslav Klose and Joseph Podolski are always referred to as German and not German-Polish and yet Özil was always German- Turkish, because of his Muslim heritage.

For someone who has worn that German jersey 92 times scoring 23 goals internationally, being a vital part of the 2014 team that lifted the world cup trophy and who has been German player of the year 5 times, this is a sad ending to a wonderful career. He has done a lot of charity work and has been a great role model on and off the field but all of this seems to be of little significance and consequence for some in the German media and FA.


There have been mixed reactions; from a global outrage for soccer fans around the world who applauded Özil for standing up to racism, to some saying German Football is better off without him, to some in the German Football Association downplaying it and reducing it to poor performance instead of a much more larger, sensitive race problem and to some who realize something precious has been lost.

Once a hero, Mesut Özil's now just a scapegoat for racists. And his suddenly abbreviated Germany career serves as a microcosm of Europe's shifting stance on immigration.
The German FA seems to downplay the racial issues and condensing it to Özil poor performance in recent times. The Bayern Munich President, Uli Hoeness, and the German FA have been harsh to come back with scandalous quotes that Özil performance has slumped in the recent past and that he does not belong on the national team. It blames Germany's world cup failure down to one player and seems to erode Özil's stellar record over his career. You may not think he was playing his best soccer in recent times but a total ignorance over the racial issue is very reckless for Germany moving forward.

It shows wanted disregard for a serious issue of racial tensions not just in the team but the nation as well. It shows a lack of understating the difference inherent in a player and shoving that difference back into their face rather than protecting them from various racial abuses and mistreatment, subtle, as they may have been. Perhaps this shows the deeply embedded racism that still exists within the DFA and in Germany. How does this affect the future Mesut Özil who dream of playing for Germany; they may now think twice. Time will only tell.

Mesut Özil will continue to play for English club Arsenal and possibly create more history there but the real loser here is German football.







Tuesday, 24 July 2018

Indonesia | 'I felt disgusted': inside Indonesia's fake Twitter account factories

People attend a rally to show support for jailed former governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama - known by his nickname Ahok. Photograph: Bay Ismoyo/AFP/Getty Images via The Guardian
Kate Lamb in Jakarta

Monday, 23 Jul 2018

To pass them off as real, Alex would enliven his fake accounts with dashes of humanity. Mixed up among the stream of political posts, his avatars – mostly pretty young Indonesian women – would bemoan their broken hearts and post pictures of their breakfasts.

But these fake accounts were not for fun; Alex and his team were told it was "war".

"When you're at war you use anything available to attack the opponent," says Alex from a cafe in central Jakarta, "but sometimes I felt disgusted with myself."

For several months in 2017 Alex, whose name has been changed, alleges he was one of more than 20 people inside a secretive cyber army that pumped out messages from fake social media accounts to support then Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known as "Ahok", as he fought for re-election.

"They told us you should have five Facebook accounts, five Twitter accounts and one Instagram," he told the Guardian. "And they told us to keep it secret. They said it was 'war time' and we had to guard the battleground and not tell anyone about where we worked."

The Jakarta election – which saw the incumbent Ahok, a Chinese Christian, compete against the former president's son Agus Yudhoyono, and the former education minister, Anies Baswedan – churned up ugly religious and racial divisions. It culminated in mass Islamic rallies and allegations that religion was being used for political gain. Demonstrators called for Ahok to be jailed on contentious blasphemy charges.

The rallies were heavily promoted by an opaque online movement known as the Muslim Cyber Army, or the MCA, which employed hundreds of fake and anonymous accounts to spread racist and hardline Islamic content designed to turn Muslim voters against Ahok.

Alex says his team was employed to counter the deluge of anti-Ahok sentiment, including hashtags that critiqued opposition candidates, or ridiculed their Islamic allies.

Alex's team, comprising Ahok supporters and university students lured by the lucrative pay of about $280 (£212) a month, was allegedly employed in a "luxury house" in Menteng, central Jakarta. They were each told to post 60 to 120 times a day on their fake Twitter accounts, and a few times each day on Facebook.

'Special forces'
In Indonesia – which ranks among the top five users of Twitter and Facebook globally – they are what are known as a "buzzer teams" – groups which amplify messages and creates a "buzz" on social networks. While not all buzzer teams use fake accounts, some do.

Alex says his team of 20 people, each with 11 social media accounts, would generate up to 2,400 posts on Twitter a day.

The operation is said to have been coordinated through a WhatsApp group called Pasukan Khusus, meaning "special forces" in Indonesian, which Alex estimates consisted of about 80 members. The team was fed content and daily hashtags to promote.

"They didn't want the accounts to be anonymous so they asked us to take photos for the profiles, so we took them from Google, or sometimes we used pictures from our friends, or photos from Facebook or WhatsApp groups," says Alex. "They also encouraged us to use accounts of beautiful women to draw attention to the material; many accounts were like that."

On Facebook they even made a few accounts using profile pictures of famous foreign actresses, who inexplicably appeared to be die-hard Ahok fans.

The cyber team was allegedly told it was "only safe" to post from the Menteng residence, where they operated from several rooms.

"The first room was for the positive content, where they spread positive content about Ahok. The second room was for negative content, spreading negative content and hate speech about the opposition," says Alex, who says he chose the positive room.

Many of the accounts had just a few hundred followers, but by getting their hashtags trending, often on a daily basis, they artificially increased their visibility on the platform. By manipulating Twitter they influenced real users and the Indonesian media, which often refers to trending hashtags as barometers of the national mood.

Pradipa Rasidi, who at the time worked for the youth wing of Transparency International in Indonesia, noticed the phenomenon when he was researching social media during the election.

"At first glance they appear normal but then they mostly only tweet about politics," he said.

Rasidi interviewed two different Ahok buzzers, who detailed using fake accounts in the same fashion as that described by Alex. Both declined to speak to the Guardian.

A social media strategist who worked one of Ahok's opponents campaigns said buzzing was a big industry.

"Some people with influential accounts get paid about 20m rupiah ($1,400/£1,069) just for one tweet. Or if you want to get a topic trending for a few hours, that costs between 1-4m rupiah," Andi, who only wanted to be identified by his first name, explained.
Based on its study of the buzzer industry in Indonesia, researchers from the Center for Innovation and Policy Research (CIPG) say all candidates in the 2017 Jakarta election used buzzer teams – and at least one of Ahok's opponents skilfully created "hundreds of bots" connected to supporting web portals.
The Baswedan campaign denied using fake accounts or bots. A Yudhoyono spokesman said they did not breach campaigning rules.

Slander, hatred and hoax
The authorities have made moves to crack down on fake news and the spread of hate speech online but buzzers, which operate in a grey area have largely slipped through the cracks.

Even the central government appears to employ such tactics. The Twitter account @IasMardiyah, for example, which Alex says was utilised by his pro-Ahok buzzer team, now posts a steady flow of government messages and propaganda for President Joko Widodo – mostly retweets about Indonesia's infrastructure and diplomatic successes, or the need to protect national unity.
Featuring an avatar of a young woman wearing a headscarf and sunglasses, the account tweets almost exclusively pro-government content with accompanying hashtags.

Recently the account has posted about Indonesia's election to the United Nations security council, fighting terrorism, boosting agricultural exports, a new airport in West Java, next month's Asian Games, but also on sensitive issues such as West Papua.

A presidential spokesperson was asked for comment by the Guardian, but did not respond.

A spokesperson from Twitter declined to specify how many fake Indonesian accounts it had identified or removed from its platform in the past year. The company said it had "developed new techniques and proprietary machine learning for identifying malicious automation".

The Guardian


Wednesday, 6 June 2018

A Catch-22 From China That Could Derail Indonesia's Widodo

To win votes, the Indonesian leader needs Chinese cash to build railways and ports. To build those railways and ports he needs to accept the Chinese workers who are losing him votes

BY JEFFREY HUTTON

​Saturday, 
12 M
​ay ​
2018

On his FIRST visit to Indonesia this month as president of China Railway Corp, Lu Dongfu could have been forgiven if he felt bemused at the delays bedevilling the US$6 billion (HK$47 billion) Jakarta-Bandung high-speed rail project that his company was helping build.

Disputes with landowners have meant work has only just started on several sites along the 150km route – three years after Lu's firm beat out Japanese rivals for the train line. By comparison, Lu said in January that the CRC would bring another 3,500km of high-speed rail into operation in China this year alone.

"He said he understands," said one Chinese reporter 
​ ​
accompanying Lu on a visit to a construction site near Jakarta's Halim Airport, where the excavation on tunnel No. 1 is now under way. The reporter did not want to be identified because he was discussing an off-the-record conversation. "He said it's never easy pushing infrastructure projects in democratic countries."

Such comments hint at a growing sensitivity on behalf of Chinese officials towards local laws. If so, that is good news for President Joko Widodo, who has staked his hopes of a second term partly on securing badly needed infrastructure investment from China.
What's made Indonesian students forget the China taboo?

As China has stepped up investment in Indonesia – and more Chinese have taken up jobs here – resentment has driven some locals to protest. That has left Widodo to balance his country's appetite for trains, ports and power plants with protecting local workers as he eyes re-election next April.

"Widodo's relationship with China is shaping up as an election issue," said Keith Loveard, senior analyst with Jakarta-based business risk firm, Concord Consulting. "The relationship with China could turn toxic for him."

So China appears to be cutting Widodo some slack. Without giving details, Li promised to rein in the number of Chinese workers building steel plants, infrastructure and even serving as tour guides in Bali. This week on the popular resort island of Bali, Indonesian tour guides swarmed the immigration office protesting against a surge in the number of Chinese nationals working in the same profession.

Meanwhile, local media reporting on the Morowali special economic zones in Central Sulawesi alleged thousands of illegal workers from China had arrived to help build a nickel smelter and mill capable of churning out 3 million tonnes of steel a year.
While the government has vowed to investigate the reports, the operation – owned by Bintangdelapan Group and China's Dingxin Group – has denied the existence of illegal workers.

With its parks and Dutch colonial architecture, Bandung is a popular weekend getaway.

But the train journey currently takes three and half hours and with heavy peak-hour traffic, car journeys can take twice as long.

Banks on board
​​

When Li's project is complete, it is hoped high-speed trains will catapult up from sweltering Jakarta through 760 metres of mountainous terrain and tea plantations to the balmy hilltop city.
And although some Chinese designs propose a train that can top 350km/h, the four stops along the relatively short track mean it is unlikely to ever reach those speeds.

But the project is going full-steam ahead. Before Li's visit, which wrapped up on Tuesday, the China Development Bank disbursed US$170 million in loans to kick-start work on the technically challenging project – which was a campaign pledge of Widodo's successful 2014 leadership bid.

And by disbursing the funds, China has done Widodo a favour with voters who may be frustrated with the project's glacial progress, said Rene Pattiradjawane, a researcher at the Centre for Chinese Studies in Jakarta.

"China is trying to ensure that Jokowi's pledge is on track, so to speak," Pattiradjawane said, referring to Widodo's widely used nickname.

"The money is there and work is starting."

Rising resentment

But Widodo's reliance on Chinese investment risks backfiring amid the worker influx and the rising resentment it has caused.

China is Indonesia's third biggest investor behind Singapore and Japan. But according to government data, the number of Chinese nationals working in Indonesia has ballooned fivefold over the past decade to more than 24,000. That is nearly twice the number of workers from Japan, which comes a distant second and is the second largest investor.

Indonesia's health scheme dwarfs Obamacare. But there is a problem

Anti-China bias has a long history in Indonesia. Last year Jakarta's former governor, Basuki Purnama, a Christian of Chinese descent, was drummed out of office in an election that turned on religion and race. During his 2014 election bid, Widodo was the victim of smear campaigns alleging his grandfather was Chinese. And this month marks 20 years since rumours of Chinese merchants hoarding rice sparked deadly riots, killing an estimated 1,000.

"The Chinese are acknowledging the number of foreign workers is a huge number," Pattiradjawane said. "This is a statement they are going to do something."

Even so, Widodo cannot afford to drive too hard a bargain with the imported Chinese workers.

While work has started on the train, much of the president's infrastructure wish list remains unfulfilled with the country still chasing more than US$150 billion worth of investment earmarked for his current term. Meanwhile, his administration has pledged US$15 billion for this year alone.

Widodo has promised to spur economic growth to about 7 per cent from about 5 per cent now, in part by investing in infrastructure. But slow trains and tangled ports drive up costs. Indonesian manufacturers spend a quarter of their sales on logistics, according to the World Bank. In Thailand it's 15 per cent.

Promises for growth

Scott Younger, director of Jakarta based consultancy Nusantara Infrastructure, said that to reach Widodo's growth target, Indonesia needed to secure annual investment of about US$90 billion.

"Indonesia needs everything: ports, roads, rail, everything if it hopes to have faster rates of growth."

In April, Luhut Pandjaitan, the country's coordinating minister for maritime affairs, visited Beijing and scraped together about half the US$20 billion of investment he was seeking.

Nevertheless, Widodo has plenty of margin for error. Opinion polls put him in front of his most likely challenger, Prabowo Subianto, whom he beat in 2014 by double digits; inflation is under control; and the jobs that Chinese are said to be taking are largely in remote areas.

Even so, Widodo ignores the issue at his peril. "Any country would be upset," said Concord's Loveard. ■



Monday, 16 April 2018

What to know about the U.S.-led strikes in Syria

By BLOOMBERG via FORTUNE


The U.S., U.K. and France launched strikes on Syria a week after U.S. President Donald Trump said there would be a "big price" to pay for the apparent use of chemical weapons by President Bashar al-Assad's forces in the town of Douma, an attack that killed scores of civilians. Here's what we know and what's still to come:

1. What did they attack?
Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May released statements after the attack had begun, saying the missile strikes were focused on chemical weapons sites.

General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that naval and air forces struck three primary targets, including a chemical weapons research facility outside Damascus and a weapons storage area near Homs.


The U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the Syrian war through activists on the ground, said installations belonging to the country's elite Republican Guards were also targeted. Russia's defense ministry said more than 100 cruise missiles were fired.

"This was not geared towards weakening Assad's conventional military capabilities," said Kamran Bokhari, a senior fellow with the Center for Global Policy in Washington. It was "a little more than the symbolic strike from last year but steering clear of any major operation."

2. How did Syria react?


Syria said the strikes failed to achieve their goal and breached international law. Syrian air defenses hit several incoming missiles, state-run media said. Analysts and diplomats said the strike was unlikely to shake Assad's hold on power or change the trajectory of the conflict.

The attack "was a victory for Syria," former lawmaker Sharif Shehadeh said by phone from Damascus. "Instead of weakening the government, it only made it stronger," he said. "Trump did it to save face."

Assad's allies, including Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah group, also condemned the strikes. Iran's Supreme Leader called the attack a crime and the country's Revolutionary Guard Corps said it gave "the resistance a more open hand," although it did not threaten to retaliate.

3. Are the attacks over?
May in her statement called it a "limited and targeted strike." U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said that "right now, this is a one-time shot and I believe it has sent a very strong message to dissuade him, to deter him." The U.K. Defense Ministry said the strikes were "successful."


Still, Trump warned in his televised address of a readiness to "sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents," though he didn't specify what that meant.

4. How did Russia respond?
Russia denounced the attacks as aggression against its ally, but there was no sign of an immediate military response.

"Our worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard," Anatoly Antonov, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., wrote on Facebook. "Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible," he added, an apparent reference to Trump's mention of President Vladimir Putin in his speech.

The Kremlin released a statement from Putin saying the strike was an "act of aggression against a sovereign state which is in the front line in the fight against terrorism," and that there was no proof a chemical weapons attack had taken place.

The strikes appeared to have taken place far from Russia's bases near the Syrian coast. U.S. officials said they gave Russia no specific warnings of the attacks or the targets, but used the usual hotline with Moscow's military to ensure the airspace was clear. Still, French Defense minister Florence Parly told reporters that Russian authorities were warned ahead of time, as proof the action would be limited to specific targets.

French authorities said the allies don't seek any military escalation, nor confrontation with Russia. Macron, who called Putin on Friday to discuss the situation, still plans to travel to a security conference in St Petersburg in May, where they are expected to meet, an official said.

5. What about the U.K.?
May on Saturday made her case for action in the face of opposition from much of the public and the Labour Party, saying in a further statement it was highly likely Assad's regime had used chemical weapons.


"We would have preferred an alternative path, but in this case there was none," May said. "We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalized."

She authorized the strikes without parliamentary backing and it's not clear she would have got it if she'd sought it. Parliament refused U.K. participation in a planned punitive raid on Syria in 2013, one of the reasons then-U.S. President Barack Obama called it off.

May will address Parliament — where she doesn't have a majority — next week. Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong anti-war campaigner, has accused May of " waiting for instructions from President Donald Trump."

6. And Germany?
While Germany did not take part in the action against Syria, Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday she supported steps taken by the allies.