Indonesian Orders?
 

Indonesia orders troops out by end of March

Marines won’t set up camp;
Paris Group offers to suspend debt

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:44 p.m. ET Jan. 12, 2005


BANDA ACEH, Indonesia - Indonesia announced that U.S. and other foreign troops providing tsunami disaster relief must leave the country by the end of March and ordered aid workers Wednesday to declare their travel plans or face expulsion from devastated Aceh province on Sumatra island.

The government’s moves highlight its sensitivities over a foreign military operation in this country — albeit a humanitarian one — and underscore its efforts to regain control of Aceh province, the scene of a decades-old conflict between separatist rebels and federal troops accused of human rights abuses.

In Paris, meanwhile, the world’s wealthiest nations said they supported a moratorium on debt repayments by countries stricken by the Dec. 26 disaster, which has killed more than 150,000 people.

The latest restrictions placed on the international presence came as the aircraft carrier leading the U.S. military’s tsunami relief effort steamed out of Indonesian waters Wednesday after the government declined to let the ship’s fighter pilots use its airspace for training missions. The USS Abraham Lincoln’s diversion was not expected to affect aid flights, however.

U.S. Marines have also scaled back their plans to send hundreds of troops ashore to build roads and clear rubble. The two sides reached a compromise in which the Americans agreed not to set up a base camp on Indonesia or carry weapons.

Instead, the Marines, about 2,000 of whom were diverted to tsunami relief from duty in Iraq, will keep a “minimal footprint” in the country, with most returning to ships at night, said Col. Tom Greenwood, commander of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit.


U.S. seeks explanation
In Washington, the White House asked the Indonesian government to explain why it was demanding that the U.S. military and other foreign troops providing disaster relief leave the country by March 31.

“We’ve seen the reports. ... We’ll seek further clarification from Indonesia about what this means,” said Scott McClellan, press secretary to President Bush. “We hope that the government of Indonesia and the military in Indonesia will continue the strong support they have provided to the international relief efforts so far.”


In announcing the decision, Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said Tuesday that “a three-month period is enough, even sooner the better.”

Cabinet Secretary Sudi Silalahi explained that Indonesia hoped to take over the humanitarian work by March 26, exactly three months after the massive 9.0-magnitude earthquake set off waves across southern Asia and Africa that killed more than 150,000 people, two-thirds of them on Sumatra.

Starting Jan. 26, Indonesia will “gradually take over the role of foreign military and non-military assistance,” Silalahi said. By Feb. 26, he said, Indonesia’s role should be larger than that of the foreigners.

Debt bills could be suspended
At a meeting Wednesday in Paris, a French official said the world’s wealthiest nations, including the United States, believed a suspension of billions of dollars in debt repayments by tsunami-devastated countries would provide a necessary “breath of oxygen” for recovery and reconstruction from the disaster.

While three debtor countries — Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Seychelles — support the moratorium, Thailand does not because it fears the potential effect on its standing in international financial markets, French Finance Minister Herve ***mard told RFI radio.

The proposed moratorium on debt repayments by tsunami-hit countries “was very quickly accepted” by the 19 creditor nations that make up the Paris Club, ***mard said. The details on the moratorium were being finalized Wednesday.

Later, as the Paris Club met to sign off on the proposal, ***mard told reporters that the leading industrialized nations within the club regarded the moratorium as “completely indispensable” for tsunami-hit countries “to overcome the immense difficulties.”


Sri Lanka, India also suspicious of help
Indonesia, where the tsunami killed more than 106,000 people, is not the only affected country that is ambivalent about U.S. military aid.

After the earthquake and tsunami, the U.S. military dispatched the Abraham Lincoln battle group to Sumatra and three ships carrying Marines toward Sri Lanka, where more than 30,000 people were killed. But two ships carrying Marines were diverted to Sumatra after Sri Lanka downgraded its request for help. India, where more than 10,000 were killed, rebuffed U.S. aid offers.

About 13,000 U.S. military personnel, most of them aboard ships in the Abraham Lincoln’s battle group, are taking part in the relief effort.

In Indonesia, hundreds of troops from other nations are also helping out, along with U.N. agencies and scores of non-governmental aid groups.

Australia has more than 600 troops in Aceh and expects to have about 300 more by week’s end. Japan has sent two ships with 350 troops and has promised to deploy about 1,000. Germany and Britain each has a smaller presence, involving mostly medical teams.

They, too, have agreed not to carry weapons while on Indonesian soil and are leaving security to the Indonesian military.

Both government troops and separatist rebels in Aceh say they will not launch attacks during the tsunami emergency. Indonesian soldiers and witnesses have described at least one clash in detail to The Associated Press, involving rebels who were either seeking food or trying to visit relatives.

Indonesia reasserts authority
The Indonesian government has traditionally barred foreigners from visiting Aceh, relenting after the tsunami struck and no other option existed but to invite foreign troops to deliver aid and set up field hospitals.

Indonesian authorities are now moving reassert control. On Wednesday, they ordered aid workers to declare travel plans or face expulsion from Aceh, saying it was for their safety.

The statement from Indonesia’s relief chief also said that if groups headed to regions considered dangerous, “then their safety will be organized by the national security authority.” It was not known whether that meant aid organizations might get military escorts.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard described the demand as “a good idea.” But Clive Williams, a defense expert at Australian National University, said the Indonesians wanted to keep close tabs on foreigners to conceal corruption.

“The big problem with dealing with [the military] in Aceh is that they’re involved in a lot of corruption there, and the reason I think they don’t want people to go to some areas is because they’re involved in human rights abuses,” said Williams, director of terrorism studies at the university’s Strategic and Defense Studies Center in Canberra.

U.N. officials worried the new rules might delay the delivery of supplies.

“Any requirements that would create any additional bottlenecks or delays or otherwise adversely affect our operations need to be reviewed very carefully,” said Kevin Kennedy of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Aid continues streaming in
The USS Abraham Lincoln’s diversion to international waters did not interrupt the steady stream of helicopter flights delivering aid along the devastated coast of Sumatra island, because they were able to refuel on other Navy ships closer to shore, Lt. Cmdr. John M. Daniels said.

Under Navy rules, pilots of carrier-based warplanes cannot go longer than 14 days without flying, or their skills are considered to have degraded too far and they have to undergo extensive retraining.

The bulk of the Marines’ mission, meanwhile, has become ferrying aid workers and transporting food from the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard. On Wednesday, Marine helicopters flew the first mission to the shattered city of Calang to drop off a French medical team. Helicopters also delivered supplies to Indonesian troops in Meulaboh, farther south.

Capt. David Shealy swooped his helicopter down on a scene of utter destruction — palm trees lying strewn across a beach, their roots sticking out of the sand. Rice paddies were filled with mud. Houses had been turned into piles of rubble, or washed out to sea. Bridges were buckled and broken.

But as Shealy lowered his helicopter to hover just a few feet over a road, hundreds of people suddenly appeared, swarming around, arms outstretched.

“It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen before,” said Shealy, of Dillon, S.C.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6754820

I understand why their doing it. Not sure its the best of options though. It has the potential to not go all that well...

^ um, you need to check your facts. Over half the population of america is considered obese.

yeah, I heard on the news that some indonesian groups are claiming that foreign aid is just an attempt to re-colonize their country, it's really just making an already devastating situation more sad.

Not particularly surprising that predominantly non-Christian countries find the U.S. to be pretty untrustworthy at the moment. Unfortunately.

Nonamericans: So, do people really hate Americans for being fat-arses? What's wrong with a lil' junk in the trunk?

I think if someone really doesnt like America because loads of them are fat, that person should seriously think about getting some help...

I don't tend to hate Americans, just seems to be the people they elect.

Ah, Dubya isn't so bad. He's an idiot, which is why he represents our people very accurately. And his definition of moral values is fitting for the typical gun-toting, Godsmoking, homophobic cross burner. If it wasn't for Dubya, American comedy would be a deadend. Who would we depend on for laughs and giggles? Ray Ramono? That dreadful Last Idiot Standing show? Puh-lease. God Bless America!

www.dubyaspeak.com/

it's not surprising but it's still pretty unjustified. If the countries giving aid to indonesia began to try to get involved in political or other internal affairs of the country not affected by the tsunami, then their fears would have some basis behind it, but this is just rediculous. Although of course it's only a small group of people voicing the opinion that the nations giving aid are trying to colonize them.

nobody said anything about that being the reason that people hate americans, it was just an issue that was brought up at some point during the conversation when it started to veer off topic. Anyone who claims to hate americans is ludicrous, hate the government of a country if you will, only ignorant, and completely irrational people would ever think it logical to lump millions of people under one set of ideals and values and as all being responsible for the actions of one leader. I think (or I would hope) that the vast majority of people with hostile feelings towards america are able to differentiate between the people and Bush, if not they'd probably fall into the severely mentally handicapped category.

One of helicopters giving aid on one of the smaller islands was shot at. I don't think they understand it and our going by the "persona" that most people feed these countries of the US. It's a shame, but if we pull out we will be chastised(sp?) just as much.

^negative. You need to check yours. While over half of the population in the US is considered "overweight" (57% I believe), the highest percentage for any one specific age group and sex is 43.1% of women aged 55-64. The national rate is a ways lower than that, in the 30's. (Still nothing to brag about.) Although some interesting points. ~53% of African American women are overweight, and ~50% of Mexican women are overweight in the US, a ways higher than white women averages.

^ The sad thing about it all is that you're right. It's scenarios like this that leave me absolutely incredulous that anyone thinks they can wipe out terrorism with a series of wars. These people are so brainwashed (a nice way of saying mentally retarded), that they'd let their distorted, twisted view of the western world come between their lives and thousands of others' when we're offering them aid in a crisis. How can you possibly expect to eliminate something as strong a feeling as they obviously have? It's just not possible.

'While over half of the population in the US is considered "overweight" (57% I believe)'

Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said? I'm looking at total percentage of the population, not specific age groups or sexes.

but that completely contradicts the meaning of aid doesnt it? thats my point. countries are giving out money to make money, using poverty to further their own interests.

some of you may not know of the troubles in indonsesia. being our closest neighbor-even closer than newzealand, australia places frequent parts in their business. i havnt heard of any of this before either.
many of the smaller islands have been influxed by rebels. and form of new hi tech machinery to them is an enemy because they have nothing. the indonesian governemt does not have a tidy record with its people. going by their history the only times they have seen such machines have been in times of bloodshed. and in such a remote,traditional and undeveloped area, could you honestly blame them?

i saw an australian trying to get credit for us by saying that we have donated 1 billion dollars. that isnt that much compared to other nations. but let me put it into a perspective where it is something big. thats 1 billion out of a 17 billion economy. and thats from the government only, not the poeple. so it is bigger than it appears in a way.

I think that is my point, that the money we give out we do not get back...therefore it is aid.

No.

Obese and overweight is a big difference.

ahh, ok my bad, I missed that somehow, it does make a difference.

the women that are overweight mostly likely had childern and didn't have time to work off the weight ...busy with job, taking childern and therefore doesnt have tiome to watch there diet ...and doesnt care what thwey it hin the junk food,fast food etc... whatevers convenient

i hate americans because they voted TWICE the man whos called BUSH!!!! i hate him! he killed so many people gratuitously... i cant agree with him!

^ prove it. oh wait you can't cause your too busy being cool and doing drugs. my fault.

I would love to see people quote numbers or at least use logic in their statements. The reason Bush was elected twice is because he has a stable position as didn't change dramatically in his standpoint to satisfy splinter groups of liberals. Over 50% of American's said that the point they most considered when voting was morality. Apparantly people like having something called social stability and if someone can prove to me how we are denying g ay people rights (i'm bringing this up because that was pretty much what got Bush elected) I will switch my view and be anti-Bush.

i didnt want to insult somebody... its only my attitude.

I agree with you that Bush was re-elected based on his stable, easy-to-understand position. And the morality thing is ridiculous, what do Americans or any majority of humans know about morality in a time like this? There is a difference between morality and religion, I think some of the pollsters did not distinguish between the two that well.

Will you prove to me how we are NOT denying g a y people rights? Also, why is this a political issue? The only opponents of it cite religious reasons and "morals", but the real problems exist between the benefits of a marriage compared to a civil union. Regardless, my opinion is that is a civil rights issue, but honestly I could care less either way. I am not ***, but at the same time I don't feel heterosexuals should be telling homosexuals how to live.

BTW, I voted for Kerry because of the Bush administrations despicable foreign policy, their disasterous failure to balance the budget, and their disregard for government spending (ironically Republicans are known for low gov. spending). Honestly, to me, both were mere puppets to their respective parties, but it was an election. It's always gonna be down to the lesser of two evils.

I love the way it was seen as a great thing that Bush was wrong but refused to change his mind, so he must be worth another four years to carry on being wrong and still not change his mind.

Go stability!

g ay people are not denied rights. They can vote, gather, worship whoever they want, petition, speak their mind, publish what they want. Whatever. Marrige is not a right. By the way, I am for civil unions being made almost identical to marrige. I think its wrong that they aren't allowed some of the tax and legal benifits. I'm not a g ay hater at all. Being religious I think that the churches should have a say in what marrige is. That is why I am against Bush's amendment but for no g ay marrige.

And franscar, I and it seems the majority of America believed that Bush wasn't wrong.

Religion and morality go hand in hand. I don't know how you can't agree with that. Religion institutes morality. It doesn't matter if the morality chosen was right or not. In a country as big as America, universal morality is the name of the game. Ulitarianism is the way things have to operate or else special interest would be too numerous and bog down an already faulty system.

I'm not denying there are problems and that Bush isn't a flawed president. Both are true.

hookers, Bush cut taxes. The reason there has been an increase in money spent is because we are fighting two wars. those do tend to take up supplies.

A majority of jobs give a guranteed 3-9 months off after pregnancy to females.

Agreed completely on the last two sentences. I think his religious views/morality is more of what American media/Americans mean when they say "morality." A large part of the Southeast (Bush's strongest supporters) is part of the "bible belt" known for strong religious beliefs.

It is a political issue because in most (if not all) states, marriage is defined as the union between a male and female. Therefore, it is an issue. There are very few rights I see them not having. Not being allowed to be "open" in the military, which I think is for the better protection of the homosexual.

The entire facade over beginning those wars was false though. He's crippling the U.S. economy, and moving more towards state control than any president during my lifetime. I dunno, maybe you have to be outside the U.S. to truly get a picture of just how badly he is screwing you all.

^ I totally agree. Bush is a warmonger, and as I think Coyle pointed out earlier, the US only tends to get too involved when they are getting something back in return.
I geniunely think you get a better picture of whats going on in the US from the outside rather than the inside, because you can be more objective. That's why I dropped my point a few pages ago, it was going nowhere and I believe thats only because I feel you do need to see the goings on from an objective, neutral point of view to see whats going on.

The media in the States is all controlling so americans have to try hard to find impartial reporting. It would appear that the majority don't bother. Unfortuneately Britain is going that way to.

You guys seem to have quick judgments about the states without living here. Not to say the things you say are wrong, but some of you certainly act like you know more about this country than the people who live here.
^^I agree with you, but what majority population in the world actually thinks objectively? In the US, it is difficult to meet people who do, because seemingly everyone has a strong political or religious bias. Usually, the people in the middle are too cynical or too apathetic. Yet your statement can really be applied to anyone in any part of the world.
^^^ Iraq is/was a disaster, no matter how you look at it. But, Saddam was a threat, moreso to his own people. He potentially was a global threat, but this is long-term, he certainly wasn't an imminent threat. The U.S. should have focused all their attention on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, where many Taliban and Osama officials are STILL hiding. Saying war is bad is historically irrelevant; besides, do you think America should just take it on the chin after 9/11?
^How much access do you have to American media? You seem to know much about it, maybe your countrymen do to. Regardless, the majority of Americans focus on one kind of media, which would be Hollywood gossip. The fact is, not as many people watch the news outlets as much as you think. That is equally as big a problem as what you said. But, media distortion is all part of the game, not just in the U.S. Have you ever seen news casts where they actually give mostly good news? No. If it weren't for bad news, then their wouldn't be anything to report, because hardly anyone would watch it.

The economy part is wrong. It takes a President's actions many years before it has a true effect on the economy. And our economy isn't truly crippled as of now. And how do you say he is moving towards state control? Isn't he the one when states started allowing same sex marriages, he led to it being injuncted by federal courts?

As opposed to never getting involved? I'm not quite sure which one is better.

And geniunely I think people are objective no matter where they are from. Whether being blinded by party line, political views, or country bias. I could be blinded by where I was born, but couldn't you be as well. I'm sure that the "America Sucks" is quite the cool thing around the world to follow.

I resisted temptation to get involved in this thread because it is such a complex issue, and it's not my country. Our opinions are mostly based on biased reporting. I really wanted to say that the UK is similar in many ways to the US and no doubt if you go to the middle east we are probably similarly hated. I don't hate the US or any religion because I can't see how you can lump all people together like that. Now if you were talking about the French, that would be different.

It is the economy that Bush is controlling, the US no longer ranks among the free economies of the world, state intervention is higher there than among the majority of western European nations. By State I was referring to the government, as opposed to the individual states, propbably a poor choice of words, there's no double meaning when the term is used to describe the UK economy.

englands a ****hole too. i hate the way we've become americas extra state.

Your second statement scares me, I assumed if I said something like that I would be accused of ludicrous stereotyping.

The first statement, well a lot more states have more powers that make them think more objectively about their actions. In my country, we have our own Parliament who passes laws on various things. We're also governed by the UK parliament, where the government can do what they want, but there are 2 Houses that have to pass any laws that get through, and thirdly, the Monarchy have to approve also. Don't get me started on the Monarchy though, basically apart from that particular fuction, I think they are a joke. Fourthly, we are governed by the European Regulations, and cannot do anything than contravenes the Convention. So America have more power here than most places, I think thats why a lot of people hate it, but maybe for some, its jealousy. But I think thats why things are able to get a little more out of hand.

Is that really the only two choices you think the US have considered? Helping out when there is something to be gained or not at all?
What about getting involved in the countries who are in similar trouble to what happened in Iraq but who don't have any oil or any other way they could pay your country back?