In East Timor, I found a country littered with graves, their black crosses crowding the eye: crosses on peaks, crosses in tiers on the hillsides, crosses beside the road. They announced the murder of entire communities, from babies to the elderly. In 2000, when the East Timorese, displaying a collective act of courage with few historical parallels, finally won their freedom, the United Nations set up a truth commission; on 24 January, its 2,500 pages were published. I have never read anything like it. Using mostly official documents, it recounts in painful detail the entire disgrace of East Timor's blood sacrifice. It says that 180,000 East Timorese were killed by Indonesian troops or died from enforced starvation. It describes the "primary roles" in this carnage of the governments of the United States, Britain and Australia. America's "political and military support were fundamental" in crimes that ranged from "mass executions to forced resettlements, sexual and other horrific forms of torture as well as abse against children". Britain, a co-conspirator in the invasion, was the main arms supplier. If you want to see through the smokescreen currently around Iraq, and understand true terrorism, read this document.

As I read it, my mind went back to the letters Foreign Office officials wrote to concerned members of the public and MPs following the showing of my film Death of a Nation. Knowing the truth, they denied that British-supplied Hawk jets were blowing straw-roofed villages to bits and that British-supplied Heckler and Koch machine-guns were finishing off the occupants. They even lied about the scale of suffering.

And it is all happening again, wrapped in the same silence and with the "international community" playing the same part as backer and beneficiary of the crushing of a defenceless people. Indonesia's brutal occupation of West Papua, a vast, resource-rich province - stolen from its people, like East Timor - is one of the great secrets of our time. Recently, the Australian minister of "communications", Senator Helen Coonan, failed to place it on the map of her own region, as if it did not exist.

An estimated 100,000 Papuans, or 10 per cent of the population, have been killed by the Indonesian military. This is a fraction of the true figure, according to refugees. In January, 43 West Papuans reached Australia's north coast after a hazardous six-week journey in a dugout. They had no food, and had dribbled their last fresh water into their children's mouths. "We knew," said Herman Wainggai, the leader, "that if the Indonesian military had caught us, most of us would have died. They treat West Papuans like animals. They kill us like animals. They have created militias and jihadis to do just that. It is the same as East Timor."

For over a year, an estimated 6,000 people have been hiding in dense jungle after their villages and crops were destroyed by Indonesian special forces. Raising the West Papuan flag is "treason". Two men are serving 15 and ten-year sentences for merely trying. Following an attack on one village, a man was presented as an "example" and petrol poured over him and his hair set alight.

When the Netherlands gave Indonesia its independence in 1949, it argued that West Papua was a separate geographic and ethnic entity with a distinctive national character. A report published last November by the Institute of Netherlands History in The Hague revealed that the Dutch had secretly recognised the "unmistakable beginning of the formation of a Papuan state", but were bullied by the administration of John F Kennedy to accept "temporary" Indonesian control over what a White House adviser called "a few thousand miles of cannibal land".

The West Papuans were conned. The Dutch, Americans, British and Australians backed an "Act of Free Choice" ostensibly run by the UN. The movements of a UN monitoring team of 25 were restricted by the Indonesian military and they were denied interpreters. In 1969, out of a population of 800,000, some 1,000 West Papuans "voted". All were selected by the Indonesians. At gunpoint, they "agreed" to remain under the rule of General Suharto - who had seized power in 1965 in what the CIA later described as "one of the worst mass murders of the late 20th century". In 1981, the Tribunal on Human Rights in West Papua, held in exile, heard from Eliezer Bonay, Indonesia's first governor of the province, that approximately 30,000 West Papuans had been murdered during 1963-69. Little of this was reported in the west.

The silence of the "international community" is explained by the fabulous wealth of West Papua. In November 1967, soon after Suharto had consolidated his seizure of power, the Time-Life Corporation sponsored an extraordinary conference in Geneva. The participants included the most powerful capitalists in the world, led by the banker David Rockefeller. Sitting opposite them were Suharto's men, known as the "Berkeley mafia", as several had enjoyed US government scholarships to the University of California at Berkeley. Over three days, the Indonesian economy was carved up, sector by sector. An American and European consortium was handed West Papua's nickel; American, Japanese and French companies got its forests. However, the prize - the world's largest gold reserve and third-largest copper deposit, literally a mountain of copper and gold - went to the US mining giant Freeport-McMoran. On the board is Henry Kissinger, who, as US secretary of state, gave the "green light" to Suharto to invade East Timor, says theDutch report.

Freeport is today probably the biggest single source of revenue for the Indonesian regime: the company is said to have handed Jakarta 33 billion dollars between 1992 and 2004. Little of this has reached the people of West Papua. Last December, 55 people reportedly starved to death in the district of Yahukimo. The Jakarta Post noted the "horrible irony" of hunger in such an "immensely rich" province. According to the World Bank, "38 per cent of Papua's population is living in poverty, more than double the national average".

The Freeport mines are guarded by Indonesia's special forces, who are among the world's most seasoned terrorists, as their documented crimes in East Timor demonstrate. Known as Kopassus, they have been armed by the British and trained by the Australians. Last December, the Howard government in Canberra announced that it would resume "co-operation" with Kopassus at the Australian SAS base near Perth. In an inversion of the truth, the then Australian defence minister, Senator Robert Hill, described Kopassus as having "the most effective capability to respond to a counter-hijack or hostage recovery threat". The files of human-rights organisations overflow with evidence of Kopassus's terrorism. On 6 July 1998, on the West Papuan island of Biak, just north of Australia, special forces massacred more than 100 people, most of them women.

However, the Indonesian military has not been able to crush the popular Free Papua Movement (OPM). Since 1965, almost alone, the OPM has reminded the Indonesians, often audaciously, that they are invaders. In the past two months, the resistance has caused the Indonesians to rush more troops to West Papua. Two British-supplied Tactica armoured personnel carriers fitted with water cannon have arrived from Jakarta. These were first delivered during the late Robin Cook's "ethical dimension" in foreign policy. Hawk fighter-bombers, made by BAE Systems, have been used against West Papuan villages.

The fate of the 43 asylum-seekers in Australia is precarious. In contravention of international law, the Howard government has moved them from the mainland to Christmas Island, which is part of an Australian "exclusion zone" for refugees. We should watch carefully what happens to these people. If the history of human rights is not the history of great power's impunity, the UN must return to West Papua, as it did finally to East Timor.

Or do we always have to wait for the crosses to multiply?

For information on how help visit www.freewestpapua.org

First published in the New Statesman - www.newstatesman.co.uk

Twenty-six young men were arrested in Cairo and Alexandria on April 1 2002, accused of membership of a banned group. This was not an extraordinary event. Over the past three decades, such arrests, detentions and kidnappings have become fairly common. People disappear. Friends hunt for them. Usually they are in the State Security Investigation Bureau in Laz Oghli Square in Cairo. They are generally held long enough to extract a confession. Their treatment ranges from insults, threats and beatings to fairly evolved methods of torture. Sometimes the person is not required to confess to anything; they are given a warning and let go.

Sometimes the person dies. Mostly, they are sent to jail to await trial. Once in jail, they are generally not ill-treated, but conditions are basic. There are about 15,000 political detainees in Egyptian jails. Some have been found innocent years ago. Some have never been brought to trial. Some have been there more than a decade. The young men arrested in April 2002 were accused of membership of the banned and avowedly non-violent Islamist group, Egyptian Hizb ut-Tahrir. Among them were the three Britons. They were members of British Hizb ut-Tahrir - a group that is not (yet) illegal.

The defence team for the men consisted of 15 Egyptian lawyers from across the political spectrum; from Muntassir el-Zayyat, eminent legal counsel of the Muslim Brotherhood, to Ahmad Sayf, popular leftwing head of the Legal Aid Centre, who served pro bono along with two lawyers from the Civil Liberties Committee of the bar association.

The case was tried in the state security emergency court, part of the apparatus supporting the emergency laws. These laws were first introduced to Egypt by the British occupying power during the first world war. They were reinstated, again by the British, for the second world war - and successive governments have used them as an instrument of oppression ever since. The state security emergency courts allow no further legal recourse - their decisions are not open to appeal, except directly to the president. Some are seen as vulnerable to political pressure. The dismantling of the emergency laws is a central demand of the opposition movements, which made their presence felt in the streets and in elections last year.

The evidence seized from the men's homes took a year to examine. It was mainly books and articles, many published by the prestigious al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, by mainstream publishers and by human rights organisations. Submitted to the court were some 200 reports from the Higher Council for Islamic Affairs, the state adjudicator on religious matters on the religious content of the material - all declaring it innocent.

Sayf (who has himself spent time in jail) is convinced that none of the young men did more than discuss and publicise theoretical ideas about alternative forms of government. I attended a summing-up session at court, in June 2003. Here are the impressions I noted down that night: "Reza Pankhurst's Iranian mother and English father are here. There's a lot of sympathy for them as foreigners and parents - their lad caught up in this mess ... What struck me was the difference between the accused and the rest of us: the security, the relatives, even the lawyers looked worn, dusty and frayed. Inside the cage, the young men were collected and dignified ... Mrs Pankhurst said to me: 'I get my strength from him, from Reza' ... The judge, Ahmad Izzat al-Ashmawi, has clearly lost patience with the prosecution. He declared that he will deliver his verdict on December 25. Everyone believes he will throw the case out."

On December 22, Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmad Maher, paid a highly unpopular visit to Jerusalem. On a visit to the al-Aqsa mosque, shoes and slippers were thrown at him and some of his attackers managed to slap him. The Egyptian media blamed the Palestinian Hizb ut-Tahrir. In Cairo, Judge Ashmawi postponed declaring the verdict for three months. On March 25 2004, he declared the men guilty and handed down sentences ranging from one to five years.

Egypt is an important regional power. It is critical to US and British policy in the region: officially the spreading of democracy. But a real democracy in Egypt may not deliver what people perceive to be US and British aims: to secure strategic and economic interests, push ferocious free-market "reforms" and promote Israel. So the US and Britain support the status quo and its apparatus, while offering patronising lip-service to democracy.

The debate about whether the British government did enough to help its citizens is disingenuous. Why should Egyptian authorities pay heed to British ones? In Britain, we allow extraordinary rendition flights to stop-over in torture trips. The prime minister calls Guantánamo an "anomaly". He appoints to the Foreign Office a lawyer who advised Israel to block a UN investigation into Israeli army activities in Jenin. In Egypt, our government tortures - presumably - at the behest of the US. Why not, then, on its own account?

Egypt's judges are convening on March 17 to demand, yet again, the reinstatement of the judiciary's independence. Opposition voices have called on citizens to hold a vigil in their support.

The 23 Egyptians and Palestinians arrested and jailed along with Nawaz, Nisbet and Pankhurst are still in detention. They remain, according to their lawyers and to precedent, subject to torture. The young sister of one of the Palestinians is dying in a Jerusalem hospital. Her hope of survival is a bone marrow transplant for which the only candidate is her willing brother. And he doesn't even have a Tony Blair to not speak up for him.

Human rights cannot be regional. The rule of law cannot be selective. Guantánamo, Belmarsh, Laz Oghli and Facility 1391 in Israel are part of the same configuration; they stand together or - one hopes - fall together.

© Ahdaf Soueif

· Ahdaf Soueif's latest book is Mezzaterra, Fragments from the Common Ground

ahdaf@hotmail.com

Police have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in disputes between married couples, and domestic violence was not a criminal offence in Japan until October 2001. In May 2004 the law was revised to include psychological as well as physical abuse, but campaigners say it is failing countless victims because it applies only to married or divorced couples.

"When the law is reviewed again we want it to apply to unmarried couples, including those who live together and those who are dating but live apart," said Yaeko Horikoshi of the domestic violence helpline Tokyo Women's Plaza.

For years Japan failed to confront domestic violence; the crime is referred to in the media as "DV" because no satisfactory word exists in the Japanese language. Although the law protects abused women and their children, the country has a shortage of shelters and counselling services for those seeking refuge.

Referring to the "plantation economy" being created in Latin America as a result of China's substantial influence on the economy, he said that the United States should rely more on competition in order to get a foot back in the door as a major player.

China, the world's fourth largest economy, with the third largest deficit budget and the largest growing population, needs to increase currently insubstantial domestic resources to feed a growing economy.

According to Johnson, Latin America is "ripe to be exploited by some major power," as a result of much social and economic upheaval. "Powerful presidents impose public agendas that are out of touch," he said, "allowing for arbitrary rule with a democratic veneer."

The People's Republic of China, still functioning as a non-market economy, is the United States' second largest trade partner after Canada.

Says Johnson, the advantage of trading with China is that "China makes deals on the spot, without a lot of strings." Additionally, the novelty of frequent visits from high-level Chinese officials elevates a small country into "big leagues" -- while ranking American officials tend to ignore many of the Latin American countries.

"The instrumental nature of Chinese ownership means that many of China's loans are really not direct investment," said R. Evan Ellis, an associate at Booz Allen Hamilton.

"The clash of Chinese management practices and cultural expectations of Latin American workers," is one problem that is already showing face, said Ellis. With the displacement of the manufacturing sector in Latin America -- the region has lost export opportunities to the United States and European Union as China bears increasing influence on domestic markets -- social unrest will be a huge issue.

According to him, the threat to the United States from China may not be a matter of an evolving military threat, but more an undermining of U.S. security needs. This may be played out in the increased cultural migration to the United States from Latin America.

As China looks across the world to secure its economic growth and national security, there will be both advantages and disadvantages of its increased foray into not only Latin America but also Africa.

"No other nation in the world is more in need of economic development than sub-Saharan Africa," said Brett D. Schaefer, Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, "and commitment to democracy is fairly shallow."

Yet in an era where radical terrorists have an evident foothold in the African subcontinent, the 52 countries that make up the nation suddenly have sizeable relevance. "You can't separate China and Africa out from these overall broad concerns," he said.

China is active in natural resources -- oil, water and timber -- all over the continent. Exemplified by its "protection over rogue states," Schaefer said that military cooperation has grown largely in terms of protecting Chinese investments -- such as majority control over Sudan's oil resources.

"China pursues its own self-interests without regard for a lot of African governments, countering western influences who would like to see improved government and greater transparency," among other things, he said.

However, China is, to some extent, also good for the developing regions of Latin America and Africa, say the analysts. Investment in hard infrastructure and agriculture, among other things, are neglected by the west and much needed. In Africa, China also has peacekeeping operations and a number of doctors serving.

Africa's history with China dates back to colonial times. Josh Eisenman, Fellow in Asia Studies at the American Foreign Policy Council, said that many Chinese made investments have a political basis.

Additionally, Chinese companies are nearly always under state control -- giving them broad leadership powers, which nations find useful in being able to proverbially "kill two birds with one stone." One hand determines investment opportunities and the other discusses matters of state -- such as military cooperation.

This, says Eisenman, is especially helpful for African nations, while also enabling China to "use and leverage its seat on the Security Council." Increasing goodwill has also extended to hosting upcoming leaders in Chinese military academies, providing interpersonal ties for influence at a later time.

"United States policy should make competition a true priority," said Johnson. By increasing trade relations, America can and will open up market access, he said. At the same time, cutting strings on assistance to the greatest extent possible and pressing harder for reforms will enable the United States to dodge the fear of China's looming shadow.

"I think the jury's still out; we don't know if these investments will play out," said Eisenman, "China's values are not U.S. values and we've got to remember that."

The prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, wants to force a measure through France's parliament designed to alleviate unemployment, paradoxically by making it easier to fire workers aged under 26 years. The measure would introduce a new form of work contract, le contrat de première embauche (first employment contract), which gives employers the right to let employees go after two years. The hope is it will spur employers to hire young people safe in the knowledge they are not obliged to retain them.

But the move has provoked a vigorous backlash. More than 400,000 people joined street demonstrations across France earlier this week, and by early yesterday about half of the country's 88 universities had been shut down by student sit-ins. Mr de Villepin's popularity has plummeted, and his refusal to back down could dent his ambitions for next year's presidential elections.

On Wednesday night, the cobbled streets around the Place de la Sorbonne rang out with muffled cries from the university's main lecture theatre as students, enraged that the government was ignoring their street protests, overran the faculty and barricaded themselves in. By midnight, the street was filling up with students shouting their support from outside and police riot vans. Sheets painted with slogans against the "CPE" were unfurled from the windows.

"Everyone should have the basic human right to work," said Florian, who would not give his surname. "But there is no hope for young people in France. The contract is a joke, it protects no one. People are desperate. We feel we have the support of the people in the street but that the government just doesn't care."

Behind the barricades, some were shouting from the platforms of their "occupied" student rooms, others were typing and printing out manifestos from faculty computers. Fears that the riot police would overrun the Sorbonne were calmed when the university's rector ruled that police would have no access. Instead they stood outside - their only act of cruelty being to prevent supporters bringing baguettes inside at 5am. By 9am, they relented and everyone had had a "good protest breakfast".

For more than a decade, France's overall unemployment rate has hovered around 10% - one of the highest in western Europe. But it is the punishing level of youth unemployment that sets the country apart. Nearly one in four young French people is out of work, and unemployment among the under-25s has persisted above 20% for a generation.

Although some EU countries in eastern Europe have higher rates, most of these are moving down. France's rate increased in 2002 and has grown steadily for the past four years. The braindrain is worsening, with desperate young people - including many with good degrees - leaving for other EU countries such as Ireland.

Before lunch yesterday, crowds of anxious, disheartened students had gathered outside the Sorbonne. Many spoke of sending out dozens, sometimes hundreds of CVs and hearing nothing from employers. Others said wearing a Muslim headscarf or not being white considerably reduced job prospects. Those studying political science said they were assured a job for life in France's generous state sector. "But for most people, being young in France is a hopeless nightmare," said David Dominé-Cohn, doing a masters in history on the Duke of Bretagne. "This new contract means an employer can say goodbye to a young person for no reason."

Despite the protests, senators voted 178-127 in favour of the bill yesterday. But even within the ruling conservative party, dissent was stirring. Hervé de Charette, Jacques Chirac's former foreign minister, told the daily Le Parisien that the measure should be suspended.

The leader of France's main student union threatened more protests and demanded that Mr de Villepin withdraw the measure. Bruno Julliard told the television channel i-tele: "The more time passes, the costlier it will become for Villepin to back-pedal when there are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of young people in the streets."

Angry youth

Samir Tris, 22, Tunisian-born, living in Marseilles

I've been looking for a job for five years. It's hell. All my papers are in order, I'm young and hard working if given a chance, but that means nothing here. Sometimes I'll get the odd day's work for Tunisian builders. It's dangerous, it's badly paid and cash in hand - €50 (£34) a day if you're lucky. In the end, last year I went to England and picked strawberries, bent double for hours on end for €1,300 a month, but it was my only hope of keeping myself once I got back to France to carry on walking the streets looking for work.

Marine Payolle, 20, from Herblay, history of art student at the Sorbonne

All I can do is work for my father's business transport business in the holidays. There's no other hope for a job. Because my father has an important job and I'm his daughter, I get my foot in the door. If you're not related to someone, or well-connected, you can forget it in this country. All my friends send out CVs, but what's the point? One sent out 50 and heard nothing back. We have to live at home and save up the money our relatives give us for Christmas and birthday to last us the year. Whenever I can practise my English I do, because I hope to leave and go abroad.

Ibrahima Diop, 25, from Senegal, studying management

It's a nightmare. For three months last year, I printed out and posted off over 200 perfect CVs to companies, listing my experience, details and including a photo. I speak basic English, I'm studying on a good management course, but over 200 applications yielded three interviews. Racism is acute here. When someone sees you're black, that's it. I'm now working two days a week in a food distribution plant and studying two days a week. It's not what I want to be doing but frankly I don't know if I'll ever get the job I want.

The 33-year-old hostage-taker was reported to be severely depressed because he hadn't been able to find a job.

From about 2:30 p.m. local time until early evening, he held a handgun on his hostages in an upper-floor study hall at Colbert de Torcy High School in Sable-sur-Sarthe. The town is located about 40 kilometres away from the city of Le Mans in northwestern France.

Police in Le Mans said one of the hostages was a teacher, another was a school employee, and the rest were high school students aged between 16 and 18.

A school receptionist told the Associated Press that the gunman had told school staff he wouldn't harm the students.

He allowed the students to send cellphone text messages and call their relatives during the siege.

One report said the man had asked to talk to the country's education minister, François Fillon.

Radical legislators had proposed setting a fee on internet usage that would allow users to download both movies and music for a fee of about eight euros ($11) a month. The fee would be used to reimburse artists.

The idea was heavily opposed by recording studios and film associations around the world who said it would rob them of income.

"If France continues down this road, it could jeopardize the promising growth we're now seeing in the legitimate online market," EMI chairman Eric Nicoli was quoted as saying.

Canada's Heritage Minister Bev Oda is under pressure from the same lobby groups to upgrade Canada's copyright law.

The French government reintroduced the clause only briefly on Wednesday evening to meet constitutional requirements, then forced a vote by deputies that resulted in withdrawal of the flat-fee plan.

That drew protest from legislators and consumer groups who had backed the controversial proposal.

"The internet revolution cannot and must not be knocked aside in haste," said Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, a member of the opposition.

He warned that the freedom currently enjoyed by internet users was under attack from big companies looking to ensure their profitability.

Supporters of the amendment called for the government to put the bill on hold and set up a parliamentary commission to look into the issue. However a vote on the bill has been set for March 15.

UFC-Que Choisir, France's largest consumer organization, urged lawmakers in advance of the debate "not to go against the tide of digital history" by abandoning the legalization of file-sharing.

Instead, France opted to dramatically reduce proposed fines for illegal downloading for personal use. Most fines will be in the 38 to 150-euro ($52-$207) range, while the bill had originally called for penalties of 300,000 euros and jail time.

In a last-minute addition to the law, France has ordered a report on the feasibility of setting up a file-sharing platform for young artists who do not have access to traditional recording contracts or to legal downloading services.

The platform would reimburse artists for their work and allow consumers to see and hear the work of relatively unknown singers, groups and filmmakers.

The French copyright law also makes provision for reproduction of copyright material by handicapped people and libraries and allows news services to quote from copyrighted works.