While the House of Representatives investigating committee had
\nyet to complete an inquiry into the controversial purchase of
\nfour Russian Sukhoi jet fighters, the Indonesian Military (TNI)
\nHeadquarters announced on Aug. 27 that it planned to purchase
\nanother 10 of such jet fighters next year to build a complete
\nsquadron of Sukhoi warplanes.<\/p>\n
And a week later, the inquiry reached an anticlimax when the
\ncommittee, which was initially optimistic about successfully
\ninvestigating the scandal, made an equally controversial move
\nannouncing that it had failed to reveal the alleged
\nirregularities in the US$192.6 million countertrade deal and even
\nreaped criticism on the way it carried out the investigation.<\/p>\n
Apart from the alleged irregularities in both the initial
\npurchase of the four Sukhois and the subsequent legislative
\nproceeding, the TNI headquarters' decision to purchase the other
\n10 Russian warplanes added to the controversy that such a plan is
\nmade when the country is financially unhealthy and that it
\ncarries risks which are not insignificant in amount.<\/p>\n
Senior economist Rizal Ramli once said that the patchwork
\ncountertrade proposal could result in huge losses to the state
\nbecause all of the price risk associated with the purchase of the
\ncommodities involved, and their evaluation at the time of sale,
\nwill be carried out by the state budget.<\/p>\n
It remains unclear on how the government (the TNI) wil pay for
\nthe purchase of the 10 more warplanes as it was not included in
\nthe planning documents of the minister of defense or the<\/p>\n
The TNI has been suffering from arms embargoes by the United
\nStates, its major source of weapons in the past three decades.<\/p>\n
The U.S. Senate recently rejected a proposal to lift the
\nembargo, citing last year's lethal ambush against American
\ncitizens in Timika, Papua province, allegedly involving TNI
\nmembers.<\/p>\n
The Su-30-MK and Su-27-SK multi-role air-superiority fighters
\ncan also hit ground and naval targets with their guided missiles
\nand free-flight rockets. They can engage the enemy independently
\nor together with other planes. These aircraft can operate round
\nthe clock in any weather, in conditions of radio-electronic
\nwarfare and while encountering heavy anti-aircraft fire. Each of
\nthese planes can carry up to eight tons of ordnance, i.e. air-to-
\nair missiles, air-to-surface missiles, different kinds of bombs,
\nas well as highly maneuverable R-73-E short-range missiles and R-
\n27 missiles replete with semi-active radar-guided and heat-
\nseeking warheads. Any Su-30-MK can also be fitted with X-31-P
\nsupersonic and medium-range anti-ship missiles replete with
\nactive homing warheads, as well as laser-guided X-29-L missiles.<\/p>\n
These warplanes can effectively fight sea pirates, who will
\nnever escape their highly sensitive and \"all-seeing\" radars, as
\nwell as all kinds of terrorists hiding in the jungle and high up
\nin the mountains.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile both fighters differ not only in terms of their
\nweaponry. The two-seater Su-30-MK can be refueled in mid-air; the
\nplane's range will then total 8,000 km. Consequently, it will be
\nable to fly round-the-clock patrol missions over the entire
\nIndonesian archipelago. For its own part, the single-seater
\nSu-27-SK aircraft can't be refueled from air-force tankers, has a
\nmaximum range of 3,000 km. Still this is just enough to fly
\nregional combat missions.<\/p>\n
Unlike other countries, which can develop and sell state-of-
\nthe-art fighters and ground-attack planes, Russia doesn't present
\nJakarta with any political or economic pre-conditions. Nor does
\nRussia want to interfere in the country's internal affairs or to
\nimpose any sanctions in connection with any specific government
\ndecision. Our military-technical cooperation hinges on open,
\nbusiness-like and constructive aspects devoid of any time-serving
\nconsiderations whatsoever.<\/p>\n
2. Sweden -- Swede smell of democracy
\n1 X 30<\/p>\n
Swede smell of democracy<\/p>\n
Paul Foot
\nGuardian News Service
\nLondon<\/p>\n
Consternation in high places is always a cause for rejoicing.
\nThe gloom that struck down important people throughout Europe
\nafter the result of the Swedish referendum on the euro was
\nutterly delightful. Every big political party, every major
\nnational newspaper, every representative of Swedish big business
\nand the stock exchange, they all called for a yes vote. In a huge
\nturnout, the neglected element -- the Swedish voters -- by a
\nsubstantial majority voted no.<\/p>\n
In Britain, the issue seems more complicated. The Conservative
\nparty, for instance, is against the euro. The Tory arguments are
\nfounded either on silly old-fashioned chauvinism, or an equally
\nabsurd sentimentality about the currency.<\/p>\n
There is very little evidence that people give two hoots about
\nthe currency. Before the 2001 general election in the UK, former
\nConservative opposition leader William Hague toured the country
\nshouting \"You have only a few weeks left to save the pound!\", but
\nno one took the slightest notice, and the Tories were smashed.<\/p>\n
Nor is there much evidence that the Swedes who voted no cared
\na jot for the krona. If \"Save The krona!\" had been the only issue
\nin the campaign, the political and financial establishment might
\nwell have won.<\/p>\n
A far more important issue was, and is, the euro's threat to
\ndemocracy, the right of people to have some say in the nature and
\nbehavior of the governments that represent them. Most people
\ntreasure their right to vote and get very upset if anyone tries
\nto muck about with it.<\/p>\n
This is an especially crucial issue for socialists. Capitalism
\nis a fundamentally undemocratic system. The big companies, banks
\nand financial institutions operate on the principle of oligarchy.
\nThe great, the good and the rich rule their fiefdoms without
\nhaving to put up with any impertinent interference from the
\npeople who do most of the work or buy the goods.<\/p>\n
So the right to vote -- representative government -- is a
\nconstant threat to them. Much political history since the advent
\nof universal suffrage has been a story of the battle between
\nunelected capital and elected social democracy. The real
\nsignificance of Tony Blair's \"New Labour\" project in Britain is
\nthe abject, and I hope temporary, surrender of social democracy
\nto corporate power.<\/p>\n
When the European common market (the forerunner of the EU) was
\nformed in the 1950s, the capitalist oligarchs were determined to
\nprotect their domains from the growing social democratic forces.
\nThe institutions set up to run the common market were exclusively
\noligarchical; none was elected, and all governed, and still do,
\nin the interests of the world's rich against the interests of the
\nworld's poor. The European commission, the European bank, the
\nEuropean court of human rights and justice, all were kept far
\nfrom any democratic process.<\/p>\n
A European parliament, elected by the people, was belatedly
\nset up, but it was kept well clear of the activities of the
\ncommission. Even its buildings were hundreds of miles away. The
\nchief activity of MEPs seemed to be collecting their (grotesquely
\nlarge) salaries and expenses and rubber-stamping the decisions of
\nthe corrupt oligarchy they were meant to regulate.<\/p>\n
Since the abject surrender of New Labour in Britain,
\nindividual parliaments in Europe have become ever more servile to
\nthe great corporations that run the world. The EU and its
\ninstitutions, however, are more servile (and corrupt) than the
\ndirectly elected parliaments.<\/p>\n
It is this feeling of increasing democratic impotence in the
\nface of vast, irresponsible corporations that tells us, I guess,
\nwhat persuades people to vote no in referendums on the euro.<\/p>\n
3. IPS23 -- New opportunities for the UN
\n1 X 30<\/p>\n
New opportunities for the UN<\/p>\n
Hazel Henderson
\nAuthor, 'Beyond Globalization'
\nSt. Augustine, Florida, U.S.A.
\nInter-Press Service<\/p>\n
The Iraq debacle provides a historic opportunity to implement
\nlong-sought and widely-supported reform of the United Nations to
\nassure its independence and its vital role in this new century.
\nThe breakdown in the Security Council over the United States war
\non Iraq illustrated its obsolete and dysfunctional aspects. Its
\ncomposition, with five permanent members (the U.S., Britain,
\nFrance, China and Russia) with veto power, is an anachronism left
\nover from the post-World War II era.<\/p>\n
Most reformers agree on the indispensability of the Security
\nCouncil -- and on the shape and direction of needed reforms. The
\nveto needs to be dispensed with. Then the permanent seats could
\naccommodate important new world players, including India, Brazil,
\nJapan, South Africa, and newly-democratic Indonesia, which has
\nthe world's largest Muslim population.<\/p>\n
To keep the Council's size manageable, the seats of Britain
\nand France could be combined into one rotating seat representing
\nthe European Union.<\/p>\n
Another long-sought security council reform -- more necessary
\nthan ever in a world of terrorism and asymmetrical threats -- is
\na standing UN peace-keeping and humanitarian force, properly
\ntrained and ready to meet security threats and natural disasters.
\nTogether with Interpol, this professional unit could proactively
\nmonitor terrorist groups.<\/p>\n
Funding of these functions and all UN humanitarian and
\ndevelopment operations need no longer rely only on dues from its
\nmember countries. The recalcitrance of the U.S., which still owes
\nthe UN over US$500 million in back dues, has shown that new, more
\nreliable sources of funds are needed. A reduction in the level of
\nU.S. dues -- and its influence -- is also desirable.<\/p>\n
The UN, with its minuscule $1.25 billion annual budget
\n(one quarter of New York City's) can tap a wide variety of new
\nfinancing sources. Many of these are promoted by the increasingly powerful
\nglobal community of non government organizations and public
\npolicy networks, including very small fees (1 percent or less) on
\nthe $1.5 trillion of daily currency transactions, which could
\nyield several hundred billion dollars annually, in addition to
\nreducing speculation, which accounts for 90 percent of these
\ntransactions.<\/p>\n
Even as many of these funding proposals were re-asserted in
\nthe UN Financing for Development PrepComs by global NGOs and
\ndeveloping countries of the G-77, they were quietly vetoed by
\nU.S. Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, on orders from the
\nBush Administration -- whose popularity is waning rapidly.<\/p>\n
Near majorities now repudiate the unilateralist, preemptive
\nstrike policies of Bush and his neo-con cabinet. Now the deficit-
\nridden U.S. economy with its high unemployment level is the key
\nconcern of voters. Bush's disastrous policies have led to the
\nreturn of the Taliban and warlordism in Afghanistan and the
\ndeepening quagmire in Iraq.<\/p>\n
The UN is the only forum that can convene all the world's
\nnations. Even the Bush Administration is seeking UN's help.<\/p>\n
Given the abundant opportunities to revitalize the UN, new
\nfunding sources and renewed global goodwill can expand confidence
\nin the world body.<\/p>\n
Even 63 percent of the U.S. public is still solidly behind the
\nUN taking the lead in global security and peacekeeping. Enacting
\nthese reforms would be a fitting epitaph to the thousands of
\nAfghans, Iraqis, Liberians and other innocents lost in recent
\nwars, as well as a tribute to all the world's displaced refugees,
\nabused women and hungry children.<\/p>\n
There is no shortage of funds -- only misplaced priorities,
\ndefunct economic ideologies, and bloated weapons budgets. One
\nquarter of global weapons spending -- with some of the
\ninternational taxes on speculators and other abusers of our
\nglobal commons -- could provide the world with needed public
\ngoods: Peace-keeping, health and education for all,
\ncleaner air and water, environmental restoration, and millions of new jobs
\nand livelihoods.<\/p>\n
The writer is also co-editor of The UN: Policy and Financing
\nAlternatives (1995) with Harlan Cleveland and Inge Kaul.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/while-the-house-of-representatives-investigating-committee-had-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}