While the House of Representatives investigating committee had

While the House of Representatives investigating committee had
yet to complete an inquiry into the controversial purchase of
four Russian Sukhoi jet fighters, the Indonesian Military (TNI)
Headquarters announced on Aug. 27 that it planned to purchase
another 10 of such jet fighters next year to build a complete
squadron of Sukhoi warplanes.

And a week later, the inquiry reached an anticlimax when the
committee, which was initially optimistic about successfully
investigating the scandal, made an equally controversial move
announcing that it had failed to reveal the alleged
irregularities in the US$192.6 million countertrade deal and even
reaped criticism on the way it carried out the investigation.

Apart from the alleged irregularities in both the initial
purchase of the four Sukhois and the subsequent legislative
proceeding, the TNI headquarters' decision to purchase the other
10 Russian warplanes added to the controversy that such a plan is
made when the country is financially unhealthy and that it
carries risks which are not insignificant in amount.

Senior economist Rizal Ramli once said that the patchwork
countertrade proposal could result in huge losses to the state
because all of the price risk associated with the purchase of the
commodities involved, and their evaluation at the time of sale,
will be carried out by the state budget.

It remains unclear on how the government (the TNI) wil pay for
the purchase of the 10 more warplanes as it was not included in
the planning documents of the minister of defense or the

The TNI has been suffering from arms embargoes by the United
States, its major source of weapons in the past three decades.

The U.S. Senate recently rejected a proposal to lift the
embargo, citing last year's lethal ambush against American
citizens in Timika, Papua province, allegedly involving TNI
members.

The Su-30-MK and Su-27-SK multi-role air-superiority fighters
can also hit ground and naval targets with their guided missiles
and free-flight rockets. They can engage the enemy independently
or together with other planes. These aircraft can operate round
the clock in any weather, in conditions of radio-electronic
warfare and while encountering heavy anti-aircraft fire. Each of
these planes can carry up to eight tons of ordnance, i.e. air-to-
air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, different kinds of bombs,
as well as highly maneuverable R-73-E short-range missiles and R-
27 missiles replete with semi-active radar-guided and heat-
seeking warheads. Any Su-30-MK can also be fitted with X-31-P
supersonic and medium-range anti-ship missiles replete with
active homing warheads, as well as laser-guided X-29-L missiles.

These warplanes can effectively fight sea pirates, who will
never escape their highly sensitive and "all-seeing" radars, as
well as all kinds of terrorists hiding in the jungle and high up
in the mountains.

Meanwhile both fighters differ not only in terms of their
weaponry. The two-seater Su-30-MK can be refueled in mid-air; the
plane's range will then total 8,000 km. Consequently, it will be
able to fly round-the-clock patrol missions over the entire
Indonesian archipelago. For its own part, the single-seater
Su-27-SK aircraft can't be refueled from air-force tankers, has a
maximum range of 3,000 km. Still this is just enough to fly
regional combat missions.

Unlike other countries, which can develop and sell state-of-
the-art fighters and ground-attack planes, Russia doesn't present
Jakarta with any political or economic pre-conditions. Nor does
Russia want to interfere in the country's internal affairs or to
impose any sanctions in connection with any specific government
decision. Our military-technical cooperation hinges on open,
business-like and constructive aspects devoid of any time-serving
considerations whatsoever.

2. Sweden -- Swede smell of democracy
1 X 30

Swede smell of democracy

Paul Foot
Guardian News Service
London

Consternation in high places is always a cause for rejoicing.
The gloom that struck down important people throughout Europe
after the result of the Swedish referendum on the euro was
utterly delightful. Every big political party, every major
national newspaper, every representative of Swedish big business
and the stock exchange, they all called for a yes vote. In a huge
turnout, the neglected element -- the Swedish voters -- by a
substantial majority voted no.

In Britain, the issue seems more complicated. The Conservative
party, for instance, is against the euro. The Tory arguments are
founded either on silly old-fashioned chauvinism, or an equally
absurd sentimentality about the currency.

There is very little evidence that people give two hoots about
the currency. Before the 2001 general election in the UK, former
Conservative opposition leader William Hague toured the country
shouting "You have only a few weeks left to save the pound!", but
no one took the slightest notice, and the Tories were smashed.

Nor is there much evidence that the Swedes who voted no cared
a jot for the krona. If "Save The krona!" had been the only issue
in the campaign, the political and financial establishment might
well have won.

A far more important issue was, and is, the euro's threat to
democracy, the right of people to have some say in the nature and
behavior of the governments that represent them. Most people
treasure their right to vote and get very upset if anyone tries
to muck about with it.

This is an especially crucial issue for socialists. Capitalism
is a fundamentally undemocratic system. The big companies, banks
and financial institutions operate on the principle of oligarchy.
The great, the good and the rich rule their fiefdoms without
having to put up with any impertinent interference from the
people who do most of the work or buy the goods.

So the right to vote -- representative government -- is a
constant threat to them. Much political history since the advent
of universal suffrage has been a story of the battle between
unelected capital and elected social democracy. The real
significance of Tony Blair's "New Labour" project in Britain is
the abject, and I hope temporary, surrender of social democracy
to corporate power.

When the European common market (the forerunner of the EU) was
formed in the 1950s, the capitalist oligarchs were determined to
protect their domains from the growing social democratic forces.
The institutions set up to run the common market were exclusively
oligarchical; none was elected, and all governed, and still do,
in the interests of the world's rich against the interests of the
world's poor. The European commission, the European bank, the
European court of human rights and justice, all were kept far
from any democratic process.

A European parliament, elected by the people, was belatedly
set up, but it was kept well clear of the activities of the
commission. Even its buildings were hundreds of miles away. The
chief activity of MEPs seemed to be collecting their (grotesquely
large) salaries and expenses and rubber-stamping the decisions of
the corrupt oligarchy they were meant to regulate.

Since the abject surrender of New Labour in Britain,
individual parliaments in Europe have become ever more servile to
the great corporations that run the world. The EU and its
institutions, however, are more servile (and corrupt) than the
directly elected parliaments.

It is this feeling of increasing democratic impotence in the
face of vast, irresponsible corporations that tells us, I guess,
what persuades people to vote no in referendums on the euro.

3. IPS23 -- New opportunities for the UN
1 X 30

New opportunities for the UN

Hazel Henderson
Author, 'Beyond Globalization'
St. Augustine, Florida, U.S.A.
Inter-Press Service

The Iraq debacle provides a historic opportunity to implement
long-sought and widely-supported reform of the United Nations to
assure its independence and its vital role in this new century.
The breakdown in the Security Council over the United States war
on Iraq illustrated its obsolete and dysfunctional aspects. Its
composition, with five permanent members (the U.S., Britain,
France, China and Russia) with veto power, is an anachronism left
over from the post-World War II era.

Most reformers agree on the indispensability of the Security
Council -- and on the shape and direction of needed reforms. The
veto needs to be dispensed with. Then the permanent seats could
accommodate important new world players, including India, Brazil,
Japan, South Africa, and newly-democratic Indonesia, which has
the world's largest Muslim population.

To keep the Council's size manageable, the seats of Britain
and France could be combined into one rotating seat representing
the European Union.

Another long-sought security council reform -- more necessary
than ever in a world of terrorism and asymmetrical threats -- is
a standing UN peace-keeping and humanitarian force, properly
trained and ready to meet security threats and natural disasters.
Together with Interpol, this professional unit could proactively
monitor terrorist groups.

Funding of these functions and all UN humanitarian and
development operations need no longer rely only on dues from its
member countries. The recalcitrance of the U.S., which still owes
the UN over US$500 million in back dues, has shown that new, more
reliable sources of funds are needed. A reduction in the level of
U.S. dues -- and its influence -- is also desirable.

The UN, with its minuscule $1.25 billion annual budget
(one quarter of New York City's) can tap a wide variety of new
financing sources. Many of these are promoted by the increasingly powerful
global community of non government organizations and public
policy networks, including very small fees (1 percent or less) on
the $1.5 trillion of daily currency transactions, which could
yield several hundred billion dollars annually, in addition to
reducing speculation, which accounts for 90 percent of these
transactions.

Even as many of these funding proposals were re-asserted in
the UN Financing for Development PrepComs by global NGOs and
developing countries of the G-77, they were quietly vetoed by
U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, on orders from the
Bush Administration -- whose popularity is waning rapidly.

Near majorities now repudiate the unilateralist, preemptive
strike policies of Bush and his neo-con cabinet. Now the deficit-
ridden U.S. economy with its high unemployment level is the key
concern of voters. Bush's disastrous policies have led to the
return of the Taliban and warlordism in Afghanistan and the
deepening quagmire in Iraq.

The UN is the only forum that can convene all the world's
nations. Even the Bush Administration is seeking UN's help.

Given the abundant opportunities to revitalize the UN, new
funding sources and renewed global goodwill can expand confidence
in the world body.

Even 63 percent of the U.S. public is still solidly behind the
UN taking the lead in global security and peacekeeping. Enacting
these reforms would be a fitting epitaph to the thousands of
Afghans, Iraqis, Liberians and other innocents lost in recent
wars, as well as a tribute to all the world's displaced refugees,
abused women and hungry children.

There is no shortage of funds -- only misplaced priorities,
defunct economic ideologies, and bloated weapons budgets. One
quarter of global weapons spending -- with some of the
international taxes on speculators and other abusers of our
global commons -- could provide the world with needed public
goods: Peace-keeping, health and education for all,
cleaner air and water, environmental restoration, and millions of new jobs
and livelihoods.

The writer is also co-editor of The UN: Policy and Financing
Alternatives (1995) with Harlan Cleveland and Inge Kaul.