J. Soedjati Djwandono

J. Soedjati Djwandono
Jakarta

Various proposals have been suggested on a reform of the
United Nations by individual member countries as well as
different groups of member countries. Of no less important has
been the proposal offered by the UN Secretary General himself,
Kofi Annan, for discussions among members of the world
organization prior to the General Assembly in September of this
year.

Indeed, the degree of success or failure of the United Nations
may be assessed by its performance in its various functions. Yet
the idea of reform seems to have been focused on its main
responsibility, namely for the prevention of war among nations
and thus the promotion and maintenance of international peace.
Hence, reform of the UN primarily concerns the membership of the
Security Council, which since its establishment has consisted of
five permanent members each with their veto right, and non-
permanent members without it.

Therefore, the idea of reform of the UN is not new at all. A
demand for "democratization" of the UN was once embodied in the
"Jakarta Message" of the Non-Aligned countries articulated at its
summit meeting in Jakarta in September 1992.

The democratic system, however, has little relevance to the
United Nations. Yet in his speech before the UN General Assembly
in September last year, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, in
support of Indonesia's efforts for a permanent seat in the
Security Council, maintained that as the largest Muslim country,
Indonesia had proven that Islam could be a fortress of democracy
and social justice.

Even if that was true -- which is doubtful, for relations
between Islam and democracy is still problematic for many Muslims
in this country -- neither religion nor democracy has little
relevance to the UN. And Indonesia can hardly brag about its
democracy, which should be judged not only on the basis of
democracy as a system with all its mechanisms, but above all on
the basis of democracy as an ideal: Equality, justice, and
respect for human rights. Think of the former Soviet Union or now
Russia, its successor state, and the People's Republic of China!
They both continue to enjoy their veto privilege.

Insisting on either abolishing or expanding the veto right,
which in effect would mean reducing its effectiveness for
decision making in the Security Council, was to misunderstand its
original intent as well as the underlying motive of establishing
the international organization. It tended to overlook certain
facts in international politics.

The UN was basically a creation of the so-called Big Five,
namely the "victors" of World War II and now the permanent
members of the UN Security Council, when a many of the countries
of NAM and concurrently members of the UN were yet to obtain
international recognition as sovereign and independent states.
Surely, it was a joke to call (Nationalist) China and France at
that time "victors" of the war, when in the European theater only
the United States, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union could be
properly called as such. In the Pacific war, the Unites States
alone deserved to be called "victor".

Secondly, the UN was thus a reflection of the postwar II world
order. That world order shortly afterwards developed into the
Cold War, marked by a "balance of power".

In that kind of world order, the question of peace or war was
the primary responsibility of the major powers. Now, of course,
all the five permanent members of the SC are nuclear weapon
states.

It was assumed that it was up to them, or any of them, whether
there would be war or peace in the world, if only in the limited
sense of the absence of such a war among nations. It would
therefore be only fair that besides their responsibilities, they
also enjoyed certain privileges.

The veto right of the major powers was both a responsibility
and a privilege, but one which was necessary for the maintenance
of international peace. A decision of major importance, i.e. one
likely to affect international peace, made by the Security
Council without the concurrence of any one of the major powers,
may very well prompt the major power concerned to take a
unilateral action leading to war, especially if at stake is what
it perceives as its vital national interest. Thus the veto right
has been designed precisely as a mechanism to ensure a consensus
among the major powers as a guarantee for the maintenance of
international peace.

The United Nations purports to represent the existing world
order. And the decisive influence of the United States over the
organization through its dominant role in the Security Council
since the end of the Cold War seems to fit in with the prevailing
world order. Restructuring of the United Nations, therefore,
would require re-structuring the world order. But a world order
comes into being not so much by design as by force of
circumstances.

During the Cold War, no single major power could claim to
occupy a predominant position because of what was commonly
perceived as a balance of power. For reasons of strategic nature,
therefore, the U.S. is now the only "superpower" in the post-
Cold War world. That has enabled the U.S. to act unilaterally and
get away with it, thereby abandoning the principle of
multilateralism by its invasion on Iraq.

In the end, the question concerns the problematic value of
multilateralism vs. unilateralism. Multilateralism provides
political legitimacy for an action on behalf of the international
community. The UN serves as a source of "moral" authority,
although relations among nations (nation-states) are "amoral"-
not "immoral"- for a state is an abstraction. However, founding
no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the original
justification for U.S. attack on Iraq, was changed into
"liberation" of the Iraqi people from the injustice of Saddam
Hussein the despot.

Indeed, to introduce individual freedom and democratization is
a noble aim. But it is a moral question if a morally noble aim
can be imposed by violence. The answer may depend on how one
understands the concept of "violence" and "injustice", while the
moral validity of a "choice of the lesser evil" may be doubtful.

Hopefully, one can still rely on the American Constitution
with its effective system of checks and balances. This is the
last of President Bush's term of office.

The writer is a political analyst.

2. Moge -- Ethanol is not the answer to fuel shortage
2 x 21

Ethanol not the answer
to fuel shortages

C. G. Moghe
Jakarta

In his article dated July 12, 2005, Harold Koh posed a
question Is Ethanol the answer to fuel shortage? and had a lot of
things to say proposing that it is.

His fears are in fact valid. Indonesia, now a net importer of
oil, lacks the financial resources to foot the potential import
bill of continuing imports estimated by Koh to be more than
US$1.1 billion in 2005 (assuming a price of $50 a barrel). As a
solution Koh visualizes the use of ethanol as a supplementary
fuel for motor vehicles, without really getting in to the depth
of the issues involved and the current situation of the sugar
industry (which is supposed to provide enough molasses from which
the ethanol is to be produced).

In simple terms, after the sugar cane juice is processed to
get sugar, the residual molasses is distilled to get the Ethanol.
Therefore a strong and efficient sugar industry is necessary for
getting adequate Ethanol at economic prices. While ethanol has
indeed been used successfully as an alternative fuel in Brazil
(as well as other countries), with the automobiles using fuel
containing at least 24 percent ethanol according to Koh, the
situation is vastly different in Indonesia. Koh thus quite
correctly says that "Brazil's success in ethanol use is due
primarily to its strong sugar industry".

Brazil is a net exporter of sugar in the world market but
Indonesia does not manufacture enough sugar to meet its internal
needs. In fact the Indonesian Sugar industry can not meet the
world competition and world sugar prices have always been lower
than those in Indonesia.

Indonesian sugarcane yields have not kept pace with the world
yields and the sugar cane farmers of Indonesia are unable to sell
their sugar, except with the protection offered by the Government
in various forms. There is no likelihood therefore of any
significant change in this situation in near future, leading to
adequate supply of ethanol from domestic sources.

On the other hand, import of ethanol for blending with
petrol/gasoline may be somewhat more economical than import of
petrol/gasoline, it will still leave the country to foot the
import bill, which it is ill equipped to manage. If the local
meager supply of molasses is diverted for making ethanol for
blending, then it will create a shortfall in the industries which
use the molasses today, generating an adverse chain reaction in
some other areas, while trying to solve the problems related to
import of petrol/gasoline.

Koh has rightly observed that "The production of feedstock for
ethanol will require large and sustainable supplies of sugar
cane. Indonesia is perfectly placed to achieve this, thanks to
the large tracts of fertile agricultural land, a year long
growing climate, and abundant labor force in the rural areas".

He has however ignored that despite these "ideal conditions",
Indonesia has been importing huge quantities of Sugar, indicating
that something somewhere in Indonesia is not in the "Ideal form"
and Ethanol as an alternative fuel is commercially not workable.

What Indonesia needs to concentrate on is Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG) and Bio-Fuel obtained from processed oils such as Palm
Oil.

For both the natural gas and palm oil industries, Indonesia is
a world class player.

The abundant natural gas available in Indonesia (which can be
further supplemented by reserves yet to be tapped), exported in
the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be easily further
developed, together with the infrastructure for transportation
and distribution of CNG. Use of CNG will also be more eco-
friendly.

All the necessary natural gas would be available locally,
without any need to import. The use of CNG is also well developed
the world over with several manufacturers in a position to make
vehicles, especially trucks and buses using CNG, where the usage
is heavy and the changeover will make a major positive
improvement in the national budget.

Indonesia is the largest producer of palm oil in the whole
world, with vast potential to develop the industry further. The
processing of palm oil into bio-fuel will mean very high value
addition, which will further encourage growth in production of
palm oil, keeping the fuel prices down, as compared to imported
petrol/gasoline (Please see details in Business Section of
Jakarta Post dated July 12, 2005).

So the future would be CNG and Bio-Fuels, not Ethanol, as far
as Indonesia is concerned.

The writer is a long-term resident of Indonesia and would
welcome any correspondence via e-mail to: cmoghe@indosat.net.id

3. Guardian -- London bombings
1 x 30

Aftershocks of the London bombings

Jonathan Freedland
Guardian News Service
London

Like an earthquake, the London bombings have brought an
aftershock -- and it came last night. The police announcement
that Thursday's explosions on the underground and on the Number
30 bus were, apparently, the work of British suicide bombers is
the most shocking news to come since the attacks themselves. It
is also the bleakest possible development.

Now we know that what happened on July 7 was not just the
worst terrorist attack in British history, it was also a first:
The first suicide bombing on British soil. That is especially
depressing for a reason Israelis, Iraqis, Indians and Russians
will understand well. For the suicide bomber represents a unique
kind of threat; an enemy that does not fear being captured or
killed is always bound to be more potent. To give one practical
example, warnings about suspect packages on the tube are futile
against a man ready to detonate a bomb in his lap.

More deeply, these men will have hoped their deaths will
endure. One detail was striking in yesterday's police briefing:
It was that property identifying the men was found in each
location, including items belonging to one man found at both
Aldgate and Edgware Road stations. That cannot have been an
accident. It suggests these killers wanted their names to be
known; they were proud of what they did.

It is hardly a surprise. For the suicide bomber aims to be a
martyr, his face burned on to a thousand webpages, his action a
model to be emulated. Who knows, perhaps a video -- like those
released by the men of Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- is waiting to
be found in one of those Leeds homes. The danger here is the
process which represents al-Qaeda's modus operandi, with one
outrage inspiring others.

That these men wanted to kill and die is bad enough. That they
were, it seems, born and raised in this country is even worse. If
they had been a foreign cell, like that responsible for the
Madrid bombing, we could have comforted ourselves that this was
an external phenomenon, an alien intrusion. The remedies would
have been obvious: Tighter border controls, more international
cooperation.

But there can be no such comfort if these killers were British
citizens. We could shut out every last asylum seeker, expel every
illegal immigrant, and it would make us no safer. This attack
came from within.

British Asians will find that especially dispiriting. They
know from harsh, direct experience what it will entail:
Suspicious looks and worse every time they get on a train or bus.
The Met rightly called yesterday for no smearing or stigmatizing
of entire communities. But the danger of ostracism is great --
and greater now than 24 hours ago.

British Muslims rightly insist that there can be no collective
guilt -- not for bombs whose victims included several Muslims --
and their leaders have been vocal in their condemnation of the
killings. The Muslim Council of Britain is considering a public
demonstration against terror.

And yet yesterday's news will increase the intensity of a
process that was already underway -- the soul-searching of a
community which now knows it includes suicide bombers among its
young. You could see some of that introspection on these pages on
Saturday, as members of the Guardian's Muslim youth forum
discussed the London bombings. "It isn't good enough for Muslims
to merely condemn terrorism," wrote Ehsan Masood. "We need to
clamp down hard on the shoddy theology that people like al-Qaeda
use to justify what they do."

That kind of voice will surely be emboldened now. Fiyaz
Mughal, who runs the interfaith Diverse Trust, told me an agenda
is already forming for British Muslims. First item would be a
stepping up of efforts to train British-born imams -- rather than
relying on foreign leaders with an incendiary line in rhetoric.

Next, moderates will demand that British Muslims report those
they suspect of spreading jihadist fury. Mughal admits that
literature glorifying Sept. 11 and the like is easily available
in the British Muslim community; now, he predicts, those handing
it out could find themselves turned in.

Finally, he hopes for new Muslim engagement in the political
process. Their demands will be clear, calling for a change in the
foreign policy areas -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine --
that they believe have ignited the extremists in their midst.

Of course, this burden cannot fall on Muslims alone. The
realization that Britons are ready to bomb their fellow citizens
is a challenge to the whole of our society. One security source I
spoke to yesterday, before the police revealed their findings,
presciently guessed that the culprits were "a UK group,
homegrown, having bypassed al-Qaeda training camps".

He reckoned they would have drawn on the pool of young Muslims
so disconnected and disenfranchised that they are easy prey to
the extremist sermons heard in some mosques, to the wild,
conspiracy-theory packed tapes sold outside and to the most fire-
breathing websites. The proliferation of that material represents
a deep challenge to British Islam; that disconnection and
disenfranchisement is a challenge to Britain itself.

How will this revelation affect London? Some may be reassured
by the knowledge that the bombers are dead, rather than at large.
Others will hope that, if there are more jihadist cells in
Britain, the police will now have the leads to find them.

But the truth is, it is still too early to tell what exactly
it is we are dealing with. Is this a one-off, as Sept. 11 and
Madrid turned out to be? Or is this the beginning of a campaign
of suicide bombing, like the one waged on Israel for nearly 10
years? My hunch is that the much-discussed stoicism and
resilience so far displayed by Londoners is the fruit of the
first assumption: that this is a horrible event, never to be
repeated.

That might explain the calmness which has so surprised
Israelis and Spaniards. The Spanish newspapers have been stunned
by the British failure to take to the streets, to stage a mass
demonstration like theirs last March. Israeli reporters in London
last week marveled at the absence of a crowd of passers-by,
bellowing into a microphone, demanding revenge -- the scene that
so often follows a suicide bombing in Israel, like the one that
hit a shopping mall in Netanya yesterday.

We can congratulate ourselves on our phlegmatic cool so far.
But we should start to wonder what would happen to us if these
attacks became a fact of life, as they have long been in Israel
(and are now in Baghdad). Would we find restraint as easy a
policy to follow if there was a bomb on the tube or the bus every
other day?

I hope never to know the answer to that question. I want it to
stay hypothetical for ever. But a menace we have until now seen
only from a distance has stepped right up to face us. The ground
is still trembling beneath our feet.