J. Soedjati Djwandono
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
Various proposals have been suggested on a reform of the
\nUnited Nations by individual member countries as well as
\ndifferent groups of member countries. Of no less important has
\nbeen the proposal offered by the UN Secretary General himself,
\nKofi Annan, for discussions among members of the world
\norganization prior to the General Assembly in September of this
\nyear.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the degree of success or failure of the United Nations
\nmay be assessed by its performance in its various functions. Yet
\nthe idea of reform seems to have been focused on its main
\nresponsibility, namely for the prevention of war among nations
\nand thus the promotion and maintenance of international peace.
\nHence, reform of the UN primarily concerns the membership of the
\nSecurity Council, which since its establishment has consisted of
\nfive permanent members each with their veto right, and non-
\npermanent members without it.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the idea of reform of the UN is not new at all. A
\ndemand for \"democratization\" of the UN was once embodied in the
\n\"Jakarta Message\" of the Non-Aligned countries articulated at its
\nsummit meeting in Jakarta in September 1992.<\/p>\n
The democratic system, however, has little relevance to the
\nUnited Nations. Yet in his speech before the UN General Assembly
\nin September last year, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, in
\nsupport of Indonesia's efforts for a permanent seat in the
\nSecurity Council, maintained that as the largest Muslim country,
\nIndonesia had proven that Islam could be a fortress of democracy
\nand social justice.<\/p>\n
Even if that was true -- which is doubtful, for relations
\nbetween Islam and democracy is still problematic for many Muslims
\nin this country -- neither religion nor democracy has little
\nrelevance to the UN. And Indonesia can hardly brag about its
\ndemocracy, which should be judged not only on the basis of
\ndemocracy as a system with all its mechanisms, but above all on
\nthe basis of democracy as an ideal: Equality, justice, and
\nrespect for human rights. Think of the former Soviet Union or now
\nRussia, its successor state, and the People's Republic of China!
\nThey both continue to enjoy their veto privilege.<\/p>\n
Insisting on either abolishing or expanding the veto right,
\nwhich in effect would mean reducing its effectiveness for
\ndecision making in the Security Council, was to misunderstand its
\noriginal intent as well as the underlying motive of establishing
\nthe international organization. It tended to overlook certain
\nfacts in international politics.<\/p>\n
The UN was basically a creation of the so-called Big Five,
\nnamely the \"victors\" of World War II and now the permanent
\nmembers of the UN Security Council, when a many of the countries
\nof NAM and concurrently members of the UN were yet to obtain
\ninternational recognition as sovereign and independent states.
\nSurely, it was a joke to call (Nationalist) China and France at
\nthat time \"victors\" of the war, when in the European theater only
\nthe United States, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union could be
\nproperly called as such. In the Pacific war, the Unites States
\nalone deserved to be called \"victor\".<\/p>\n
Secondly, the UN was thus a reflection of the postwar II world
\norder. That world order shortly afterwards developed into the
\nCold War, marked by a \"balance of power\".<\/p>\n
In that kind of world order, the question of peace or war was
\nthe primary responsibility of the major powers. Now, of course,
\nall the five permanent members of the SC are nuclear weapon
\nstates.<\/p>\n
It was assumed that it was up to them, or any of them, whether
\nthere would be war or peace in the world, if only in the limited
\nsense of the absence of such a war among nations. It would
\ntherefore be only fair that besides their responsibilities, they
\nalso enjoyed certain privileges.<\/p>\n
The veto right of the major powers was both a responsibility
\nand a privilege, but one which was necessary for the maintenance
\nof international peace. A decision of major importance, i.e. one
\nlikely to affect international peace, made by the Security
\nCouncil without the concurrence of any one of the major powers,
\nmay very well prompt the major power concerned to take a
\nunilateral action leading to war, especially if at stake is what
\nit perceives as its vital national interest. Thus the veto right
\nhas been designed precisely as a mechanism to ensure a consensus
\namong the major powers as a guarantee for the maintenance of
\ninternational peace.<\/p>\n
The United Nations purports to represent the existing world
\norder. And the decisive influence of the United States over the
\norganization through its dominant role in the Security Council
\nsince the end of the Cold War seems to fit in with the prevailing
\nworld order. Restructuring of the United Nations, therefore,
\nwould require re-structuring the world order. But a world order
\ncomes into being not so much by design as by force of
\ncircumstances.<\/p>\n
During the Cold War, no single major power could claim to
\noccupy a predominant position because of what was commonly
\nperceived as a balance of power. For reasons of strategic nature,
\ntherefore, the U.S. is now the only \"superpower\" in the post-
\nCold War world. That has enabled the U.S. to act unilaterally and
\nget away with it, thereby abandoning the principle of
\nmultilateralism by its invasion on Iraq.<\/p>\n
In the end, the question concerns the problematic value of
\nmultilateralism vs. unilateralism. Multilateralism provides
\npolitical legitimacy for an action on behalf of the international
\ncommunity. The UN serves as a source of \"moral\" authority,
\nalthough relations among nations (nation-states) are \"amoral\"-
\nnot \"immoral\"- for a state is an abstraction. However, founding
\nno evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the original
\njustification for U.S. attack on Iraq, was changed into
\n\"liberation\" of the Iraqi people from the injustice of Saddam
\nHussein the despot.<\/p>\n
Indeed, to introduce individual freedom and democratization is
\na noble aim. But it is a moral question if a morally noble aim
\ncan be imposed by violence. The answer may depend on how one
\nunderstands the concept of \"violence\" and \"injustice\", while the
\nmoral validity of a \"choice of the lesser evil\" may be doubtful.<\/p>\n
Hopefully, one can still rely on the American Constitution
\nwith its effective system of checks and balances. This is the
\nlast of President Bush's term of office.<\/p>\n
The writer is a political analyst.<\/p>\n
2. Moge -- Ethanol is not the answer to fuel shortage
\n2 x 21<\/p>\n
Ethanol not the answer
\nto fuel shortages<\/p>\n
C. G. Moghe
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
In his article dated July 12, 2005, Harold Koh posed a
\nquestion Is Ethanol the answer to fuel shortage? and had a lot of
\nthings to say proposing that it is.<\/p>\n
His fears are in fact valid. Indonesia, now a net importer of
\noil, lacks the financial resources to foot the potential import
\nbill of continuing imports estimated by Koh to be more than
\nUS$1.1 billion in 2005 (assuming a price of $50 a barrel). As a
\nsolution Koh visualizes the use of ethanol as a supplementary
\nfuel for motor vehicles, without really getting in to the depth
\nof the issues involved and the current situation of the sugar
\nindustry (which is supposed to provide enough molasses from which
\nthe ethanol is to be produced).<\/p>\n
In simple terms, after the sugar cane juice is processed to
\nget sugar, the residual molasses is distilled to get the Ethanol.
\nTherefore a strong and efficient sugar industry is necessary for
\ngetting adequate Ethanol at economic prices. While ethanol has
\nindeed been used successfully as an alternative fuel in Brazil
\n(as well as other countries), with the automobiles using fuel
\ncontaining at least 24 percent ethanol according to Koh, the
\nsituation is vastly different in Indonesia. Koh thus quite
\ncorrectly says that \"Brazil's success in ethanol use is due
\nprimarily to its strong sugar industry\".<\/p>\n
Brazil is a net exporter of sugar in the world market but
\nIndonesia does not manufacture enough sugar to meet its internal
\nneeds. In fact the Indonesian Sugar industry can not meet the
\nworld competition and world sugar prices have always been lower
\nthan those in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Indonesian sugarcane yields have not kept pace with the world
\nyields and the sugar cane farmers of Indonesia are unable to sell
\ntheir sugar, except with the protection offered by the Government
\nin various forms. There is no likelihood therefore of any
\nsignificant change in this situation in near future, leading to
\nadequate supply of ethanol from domestic sources.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, import of ethanol for blending with
\npetrol\/gasoline may be somewhat more economical than import of
\npetrol\/gasoline, it will still leave the country to foot the
\nimport bill, which it is ill equipped to manage. If the local
\nmeager supply of molasses is diverted for making ethanol for
\nblending, then it will create a shortfall in the industries which
\nuse the molasses today, generating an adverse chain reaction in
\nsome other areas, while trying to solve the problems related to
\nimport of petrol\/gasoline.<\/p>\n
Koh has rightly observed that \"The production of feedstock for
\nethanol will require large and sustainable supplies of sugar
\ncane. Indonesia is perfectly placed to achieve this, thanks to
\nthe large tracts of fertile agricultural land, a year long
\ngrowing climate, and abundant labor force in the rural areas\".<\/p>\n
He has however ignored that despite these \"ideal conditions\",
\nIndonesia has been importing huge quantities of Sugar, indicating
\nthat something somewhere in Indonesia is not in the \"Ideal form\"
\nand Ethanol as an alternative fuel is commercially not workable.<\/p>\n
What Indonesia needs to concentrate on is Compressed Natural
\nGas (CNG) and Bio-Fuel obtained from processed oils such as Palm
\nOil.<\/p>\n
For both the natural gas and palm oil industries, Indonesia is
\na world class player.<\/p>\n
The abundant natural gas available in Indonesia (which can be
\nfurther supplemented by reserves yet to be tapped), exported in
\nthe form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be easily further
\ndeveloped, together with the infrastructure for transportation
\nand distribution of CNG. Use of CNG will also be more eco-
\nfriendly.<\/p>\n
All the necessary natural gas would be available locally,
\nwithout any need to import. The use of CNG is also well developed
\nthe world over with several manufacturers in a position to make
\nvehicles, especially trucks and buses using CNG, where the usage
\nis heavy and the changeover will make a major positive
\nimprovement in the national budget.<\/p>\n
Indonesia is the largest producer of palm oil in the whole
\nworld, with vast potential to develop the industry further. The
\nprocessing of palm oil into bio-fuel will mean very high value
\naddition, which will further encourage growth in production of
\npalm oil, keeping the fuel prices down, as compared to imported
\npetrol\/gasoline (Please see details in Business Section of
\nJakarta Post dated July 12, 2005).<\/p>\n
So the future would be CNG and Bio-Fuels, not Ethanol, as far
\nas Indonesia is concerned.<\/p>\n
The writer is a long-term resident of Indonesia and would
\nwelcome any correspondence via e-mail to: cmoghe@indosat.net.id<\/p>\n
3. Guardian -- London bombings
\n1 x 30<\/p>\n
Aftershocks of the London bombings<\/p>\n
Jonathan Freedland
\nGuardian News Service
\nLondon<\/p>\n
Like an earthquake, the London bombings have brought an
\naftershock -- and it came last night. The police announcement
\nthat Thursday's explosions on the underground and on the Number
\n30 bus were, apparently, the work of British suicide bombers is
\nthe most shocking news to come since the attacks themselves. It
\nis also the bleakest possible development.<\/p>\n
Now we know that what happened on July 7 was not just the
\nworst terrorist attack in British history, it was also a first:
\nThe first suicide bombing on British soil. That is especially
\ndepressing for a reason Israelis, Iraqis, Indians and Russians
\nwill understand well. For the suicide bomber represents a unique
\nkind of threat; an enemy that does not fear being captured or
\nkilled is always bound to be more potent. To give one practical
\nexample, warnings about suspect packages on the tube are futile
\nagainst a man ready to detonate a bomb in his lap.<\/p>\n
More deeply, these men will have hoped their deaths will
\nendure. One detail was striking in yesterday's police briefing:
\nIt was that property identifying the men was found in each
\nlocation, including items belonging to one man found at both
\nAldgate and Edgware Road stations. That cannot have been an
\naccident. It suggests these killers wanted their names to be
\nknown; they were proud of what they did.<\/p>\n
It is hardly a surprise. For the suicide bomber aims to be a
\nmartyr, his face burned on to a thousand webpages, his action a
\nmodel to be emulated. Who knows, perhaps a video -- like those
\nreleased by the men of Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- is waiting to
\nbe found in one of those Leeds homes. The danger here is the
\nprocess which represents al-Qaeda's modus operandi, with one
\noutrage inspiring others.<\/p>\n
That these men wanted to kill and die is bad enough. That they
\nwere, it seems, born and raised in this country is even worse. If
\nthey had been a foreign cell, like that responsible for the
\nMadrid bombing, we could have comforted ourselves that this was
\nan external phenomenon, an alien intrusion. The remedies would
\nhave been obvious: Tighter border controls, more international
\ncooperation.<\/p>\n
But there can be no such comfort if these killers were British
\ncitizens. We could shut out every last asylum seeker, expel every
\nillegal immigrant, and it would make us no safer. This attack
\ncame from within.<\/p>\n
British Asians will find that especially dispiriting. They
\nknow from harsh, direct experience what it will entail:
\nSuspicious looks and worse every time they get on a train or bus.
\nThe Met rightly called yesterday for no smearing or stigmatizing
\nof entire communities. But the danger of ostracism is great --
\nand greater now than 24 hours ago.<\/p>\n
British Muslims rightly insist that there can be no collective
\nguilt -- not for bombs whose victims included several Muslims --
\nand their leaders have been vocal in their condemnation of the
\nkillings. The Muslim Council of Britain is considering a public
\ndemonstration against terror.<\/p>\n
And yet yesterday's news will increase the intensity of a
\nprocess that was already underway -- the soul-searching of a
\ncommunity which now knows it includes suicide bombers among its
\nyoung. You could see some of that introspection on these pages on
\nSaturday, as members of the Guardian's Muslim youth forum
\ndiscussed the London bombings. \"It isn't good enough for Muslims
\nto merely condemn terrorism,\" wrote Ehsan Masood. \"We need to
\nclamp down hard on the shoddy theology that people like al-Qaeda
\nuse to justify what they do.\"<\/p>\n
That kind of voice will surely be emboldened now. Fiyaz
\nMughal, who runs the interfaith Diverse Trust, told me an agenda
\nis already forming for British Muslims. First item would be a
\nstepping up of efforts to train British-born imams -- rather than
\nrelying on foreign leaders with an incendiary line in rhetoric.<\/p>\n
Next, moderates will demand that British Muslims report those
\nthey suspect of spreading jihadist fury. Mughal admits that
\nliterature glorifying Sept. 11 and the like is easily available
\nin the British Muslim community; now, he predicts, those handing
\nit out could find themselves turned in.<\/p>\n
Finally, he hopes for new Muslim engagement in the political
\nprocess. Their demands will be clear, calling for a change in the
\nforeign policy areas -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine --
\nthat they believe have ignited the extremists in their midst.<\/p>\n
Of course, this burden cannot fall on Muslims alone. The
\nrealization that Britons are ready to bomb their fellow citizens
\nis a challenge to the whole of our society. One security source I
\nspoke to yesterday, before the police revealed their findings,
\npresciently guessed that the culprits were \"a UK group,
\nhomegrown, having bypassed al-Qaeda training camps\".<\/p>\n
He reckoned they would have drawn on the pool of young Muslims
\nso disconnected and disenfranchised that they are easy prey to
\nthe extremist sermons heard in some mosques, to the wild,
\nconspiracy-theory packed tapes sold outside and to the most fire-
\nbreathing websites. The proliferation of that material represents
\na deep challenge to British Islam; that disconnection and
\ndisenfranchisement is a challenge to Britain itself.<\/p>\n
How will this revelation affect London? Some may be reassured
\nby the knowledge that the bombers are dead, rather than at large.
\nOthers will hope that, if there are more jihadist cells in
\nBritain, the police will now have the leads to find them.<\/p>\n
But the truth is, it is still too early to tell what exactly
\nit is we are dealing with. Is this a one-off, as Sept. 11 and
\nMadrid turned out to be? Or is this the beginning of a campaign
\nof suicide bombing, like the one waged on Israel for nearly 10
\nyears? My hunch is that the much-discussed stoicism and
\nresilience so far displayed by Londoners is the fruit of the
\nfirst assumption: that this is a horrible event, never to be
\nrepeated.<\/p>\n
That might explain the calmness which has so surprised
\nIsraelis and Spaniards. The Spanish newspapers have been stunned
\nby the British failure to take to the streets, to stage a mass
\ndemonstration like theirs last March. Israeli reporters in London
\nlast week marveled at the absence of a crowd of passers-by,
\nbellowing into a microphone, demanding revenge -- the scene that
\nso often follows a suicide bombing in Israel, like the one that
\nhit a shopping mall in Netanya yesterday.<\/p>\n
We can congratulate ourselves on our phlegmatic cool so far.
\nBut we should start to wonder what would happen to us if these
\nattacks became a fact of life, as they have long been in Israel
\n(and are now in Baghdad). Would we find restraint as easy a
\npolicy to follow if there was a bomb on the tube or the bus every
\nother day?<\/p>\n
I hope never to know the answer to that question. I want it to
\nstay hypothetical for ever. But a menace we have until now seen
\nonly from a distance has stepped right up to face us. The ground
\nis still trembling beneath our feet.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/j-soedjati-djwandono-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}