democracy

I would like to elaborate the fourth priciple of the Indonesian Ideology, Pancasila is “democratic life led by wisdom of thought and deliberation among representative of the people”, and Sir Winston Churchill quote that “democracy is the worst form of government except all other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

Meaning of the fourth principle of Indonesian ideology is democracy. The form or system which Sir Churchill admitted as better form or system that have been tried from time to time. Sir Churchill believed that there was something that could rely on democracy. “Something” means the ability of adapt. Especially in the freedom of pers, the election, and there also the department to control or fix what’s the less and bad nicely and peacefully. In 1998, we’ve decided to use democracy as our political system. We’ve done well for the implementation of democracy itself, like the election of the President and also for the election of the head of province and the representatives in the parliament.

We can conclude that first: democracy is not a system that guarantee that could create the perfect citizens. Democracy is a system that assuming the citizen is not perfect forever. But with democracy, it can fix. Second: the relations between justice and freedom is a complex relations. Sometimes it is contradictory, but sometimes it support each others. But both of them can’t left from the struggling of citizen to increase their points of life.

It’s really hard to be a good country through the democracy system. The democracy in Indonesia seems like out of the line. Why I say it, because sometimes the human rights of citizens can crushed or being ignored by the interest of the government or some other people. But sometimes the citizens demand the government to do what they want, they protest it with demonstration. It caused anarchy, chaos, etc. We all know when the anarchy happen, it means the democracy doesn’t work well. We all stuck, we can’t move on. Let’s step back to Soeharto regime. The system was a dictator. The country was really secure at that time. Low number of criminality, easy to find a job, which mean low number of jobless, the economic was stable. But we (the citizen) can not criticize the parlement. When we do that, we will go to the jail, or being kidnapp. The country was secure, but there wasn’t democracy. The democracy and the security are always inversely. The country is secure, because the government full power. The citizen must obey the system, but no democracy. In the democracy, the citizens are the king, we can demand or protesting, when there are policies which we think they are wrong, but the security in the country is decrease.

Maybe we will agree when I say “our democracy will stop, when it disturbs other people democracy.” The peoples in parlement are also citizen. Their democracy really crush citizen’s democracy. I don’t blame all people in parlement. But, in fact it is. They have power, and they use it for their interest. They forgot about what they have said to us (citizen). Maybe we can say that the people up there lack of nationality. How Indonesia can move on, while the representatives forget they promise, to build Indonesia. We need the effective government.

There are three aspects to build the effective government. First: stable political athmosphere, second: the government bureaucracy has to go well, third: there are real and rational policy, which supported by citizen to arrange the development of social economic.

The first point, that we need a stable politic in democracy. A stable politic doesn’t mean the condition without different aspiration from citizen, or without conflict. Of course in democracy, there are conflict and different argument. What we need is a system, to control all of them, in order to avoid the conflict into destructive. We also need the law. Very strong law, to keep the justice, not discriminate and open for everyone. We also need a department to lead the aspiration and the interest peacefully. The pers, that can informate without distortion, and information si not controlled by money and other interest. And of course the development of the economic condition.

Why we choosed democracy as the system in this country, because we want to be a great country which always listen what the citizen want. I think, it also important to build the democracy country, the understanding between parlement and citizen, and of course the nationality.

The second point,  the bureucracy has to go well. Yes, no doubt. The developt of our bureaucracy goes along with the role of the country to advance the social, politik, and economic life. Bureaucracy in indonesia is coloured by corruption and nepotism. The citizen always complain about that, because the people up there just like give precedence to their interest. After it happened, it causes five situations such as

1.      The absurd bureaucracy

2.      Imbalance between the apparaturs need and the country’s expenditure ability to give the proper remuneration

3.      Corruption

4.      Secret bureaucracy. Means that they don’t want other people know about the bureaucracy

5.      The president will hard to make decision.

Nowadays, to beat the corruption is very hard. Sometimes we can’t prove that someone corrupt, but we just can feel it. That’s why to erase the corruption in this country is really hard.

If I’m the president, I’ll apply the Limited-Democracy system. What is limited-democracy system? It is a system that we apply democracy, but there are policies that not too free, or we can call that people can’t do it freely. For example pers. I’ll give them the freedom, but when the government has difficult problem that we want keep it secret, please don’t ever try to find the source and don’t try to inform to citizen what just happening. It will disturb the national condition. I’ll also make a security of national stabilization. How does it work? It works to control all the national condition. For example when someone thry to interupt the national stabilization, or want to bring the chaos into the harmony of the country, this department will arrest who the brain of the destruction. The department do it secretly. And of course no public news.

I don’t know if that system will bring peace and harmony to this country. I and all of citizen want a true system which can bring peace, harmony and the stabilization in social, politik and economic. We all believe the peoples on the top are doing a great job to make this country stable. We hope that the security and democracy go in equal. Citizens are the priority, and the government should serve the citizen like the king. We can do that, because we have strong constitution.

This is my quotation: “we have to move on and fight from this deterioration, pain and agony. We don’t have to believe to the representatives. What we have to do is believe in this country.” It means that, when we stuck in believing the government, just leave it. We just believe in this country, and promise to this country that we will give our best to this country. This is the important thing for the new generation.

jika saya adalah menteri pertahanan Indonesia

rencana gw sebelum jadi menteri pertahanan Indonesia, gw mau sekolah dulu yang bener, sampe jenjang Ph.D klo bisa. Jadi gini ni rencananya, sekarang gw ambil jurusan HI, nnt gw ada niat mau ambil jurusan hukum kelas karyawan, kuliahnya gw cari yang Sabtu Minggu aja, klo hari biasa, terus sore, udah keburu cape, balik kuliah. Kenapa gw ambil hukum, biar gw g goblok2 banget tentang hukum, jadi gw gak bisa di bego-begoin sama polisi yang nilang gw, yang harus inilah, itulah. Nah selesai dari situ ni, gw kerja dulu meniti karir di Dep. Han, klo gak disitu gw disuruh masuk polisi sama temen gw. Gpp deh polisi, yang penting bukan polantas yang suka nilangin orang dijalan. Sambil kerja sambil kuliah di UNHAN, ambil jurusan strategi perang semesta. Nah lo, serem gak tuh jurusannya. Gpp nnt gw bakalan jadi the Next Hitler, gak lah becanda. Nah selesai dari situ, gw ada rencana mau ambil kuliah manajement defense di Uni Ljubljana di Slovenia. kira2 bakalan mampus g ya gw disana. Bahasanya asing bener buat gw. tapi klo lo ada di situ, dan lo berani untuk blend, jangan khawatir, lo pasti bisa survive, lama2 juga kebiasa dan bisa bahasanya. Lulus dari sana, gw mau lanjutin study Ph.D tentang terrorism and counter terrorism di Univ. Hanley Putnam USA. Berat pastinya, tapi insyaALLAH bisa. Kalo dipikir-pikir, orang barat aja anggap orang muslim terroris, nnati gw disana dijadiin musuh dalam selimut, yah siap2 mati disana dong. Tapi gak mungkin, pasti otak mereka juga tidak secetek itu. hahhahha

nah setelah semua sudah tercapai, gw pelan2 mulai masuk ke ranah politik. klo emang bener gw di izinkan untuk menjadi menhan Indonesia, bakalan gw bikin tembok tu perbatasan RI Malaysia. Tinggi tembok kira2 7 sampai 10 meter, nnt setiap pos, gw isi sama tank baja, machine gun. dan infrastruktur disana ngga lupa gw perbaiki.

baru ini aja si yang udah ada dalam pikiran gw. pasti seiring berjalannya waktu, ide2 jahat gw bisa bertambah hahhahha. Cheers for Indonesia

Kasus Lady Gaga(L)

okay apa yang saya tulis ini merupakan persepsi saya, entah itu benar atau tidak, kembali lagi ke poersepsi anda para pembaca. beberapa minggu lalu ramai sekali akan konser Lady Gaga, yang pada akhirnya batal konser. ya gak tau ya apa yang membuat Lady Gaga batalin konsernya. Kalau di sangkut pautkan masalah lady gaga bawa influence yang buruk buat pemuda Indonesia, please deh pak, yang ngomong itu, anda pikir kita itu "SEGOBLOK APA SIH" menurut anda semua. Trus masalah ada ormas yang mau beli tiket Lady Gaga, ngapain coba, emangnya ente mau pada rukiyah Lady Gaga? Sekarang gini, kita mulai awal masalahnya.

Salah satu EO besar yang ada di Indonesia mau mengundang Lady Gaga untuk datang ke Indonesia. Nama EO tersebut adalah B****an. Nah terus, ada EO juga yg namanya BIG D****, berani membuka harga 1'8 mio $ untuk konser si Lady Gaga. Nah, kalah dong si EO yg saya sebut pertama, trus mulai deh ni, sikut-sikutan bisnis, apalagi para pembaca tau siapa owner B****an itu, ya tidak asing lagi MR. Eddie Bas****, yang merupakan anak kedua dari orang no 1 pada periode ini. Nah darisitu kita bisa liat, klo ormas yang teriak paling vocal disana bisa saya simpulkan kalau mereka memang tentara dari org no 1 kita. Pake bawa-bawa agama segala, gagalnya konser lady gaga merupakan kemenangan islam, apa iya? trus klo gitu, kenapa ormas ini ni, waktu di tolak di pontianak atau dimana tuh, lupa saya, pada gak mau turun dari pesawat, karena dicegat masa. klo emang pembela agama, dan bernai mati, kenapa ente gak pada turun aja bro???

tapi ini semua tergantung persepsi anda semua para pembaca. Kesimpulannya ya, ini merupakan sikut-sikutan bisnis. Siapa si yang mau, kalau lahan bisnisnya di embat orang hahhahhahha

Russia and Ukraine Gas Disputes

Introduction

The Russia–Ukraine gas disputes refer to a number of disputes between Ukrainian oil and gas company Naftogaz (Ukraine) and Russian gas supplier Gazprom over natural gas supplies, prices, and debts. The disputes have grown from a business into a political interest between these countries. Russia provides circa a quarter of the natural gas consumed in the European Union; approximately 80% of those exports travel through pipelines across Ukrainian soil prior to arriving in the EU.

Why I choosed this topic because I like watching the development of European countries. Every single issues in Europe are still interested to discuss. This topic is about conflict between Russia and Ukraine. And this conflict could bring bad impact to other European countries, if the conflict undone. However, this conflict is still dead end. It’s all about the gas. One of the natural resources which really vital in Europe. Other Europe countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic etc still depend on the gas, that Russia export, in order to run the industrial sectors. We all know that the European countries are famous with the industrial sectors. And gas, is the one hold the important role in the industrialization. We’ll see another issues. For example the Iran government tried to close the Hormutz strait. All countries around the world goes confuse, if the Iran close the the strait, the price of the oil will increase, and the industrial sectors will fall down. How that could happen? Easy to explain. The economic sector needs the oil, and the transportation, still need gasoline instead of electric power. The price goes up, the industry tries to cut the salary, or even decreasing the number of the employee, and after that, the economic condition will stuck, many industies collapse, and you know why the Iran want close the Hormuz straits? Because of they undone conflict with the USA. Many States, still depend on the oil from Iran which is located in Hormuz straits. The impact actually not only the increase price of oil, but also maybe the world war 3 will happen. I believe the United States of America doesn’t want to let her contenders like Russia and China rule the world. And we already knew that Russia, China, Venezuela are the countries which really hate the United States of America. They really want to stop the domination of United States. That’s why the conflict between Russia and Ukraine was very crucial.

Imagine if the supply stop, because of the conflict of two countries. That’s ridicolous isn’t it? The economic live in European countries, stop because of the interest of two countries. And in this topic, we can see the European Union, can not do something, in order to solve the problem between those countries. The super power of Russian government, which control the price of gas and oil can make the economic the European countries almost stop. Or we can say that posponed. I name this conflict with “love story between Russia and Ukraine.” It really interested to argue, to discuss about the solution, and it happened not only once. What the solution is very good for this conflict. Or should we blame one country? Or what should the European Union do to solve the conflict. Or maybe is  this conflict cause the European crisis?

Obviously, Russia supplies the gas through two countries. They are Belarus and Ukraine. There are more conduits via Ukraine to European countries than via Belarus. That’s why conflict between those countries should finish. It is hard to argue, that we know Russia, hold really important role in this issue, and we can understand how stubborn they are. Russia make other countries believe that without Russia, the parimeter of the economic in Europe can not run well. In my short opinion, the European Union should give the Russia good offer, in order to this conflict doesn’t occur. Maybe they can make a new agreement to make a new conduit through other country. Maybe country like Latvia or others. European Union is consist of many great countries, like Germany, France, Holland, Belgium which I believe they can give the Russia good offer. They have to avoid this issue. They already has a big problem like Greece crisis. They should overcome this problem instead.

This conflict will bring us to a paradigm, who is right and who is wrong? And whose interest should be prejudiced? Russia want to continue the gas supply to European countries, with conditions that Ukraine should agree. In other hand, Ukraine also want it to. But there is big question mark for the Ukraine. The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko hopes that the negotiation of new contarct would be completed. Even the European Union established the monitoring team in order to watch the distribution of the gas. Because the important of the gas itself in the industrial part of European countries. If this conflict doen’t end, what do you think? What will it happen? The next world war? Or European war? It could be happen. Because economic could lead to a war. Why i say the economic could lead a war, because, this conflict is related to many European Countries, such as Germany, France, Czech Republic etc. If they get anger because of this conflict, because there is not a win solution, how could that be? It could be Germany, France and other attack Russia. Economic is a vital part for a country. They can run the government well, fund the military aspect through the economy. Russia can be a leader in Europe, through their natural resources (gas). Russia could monopolize it. In my opinion for Russia, she can be one of the hegemonic power in the world. Nowaday, The Unite State is drowning, so is European countries except Russia. If i can predict the Russia can rule the world with China and may be with India in ten years ahead.

The Summary of the Topic

Russia has stopped the gas supply to Ukraine, because there was no agreement which continously between the two countries. The agreement was about the price of gas that both countries failed to reach the deal. The Russia has stopped the gas supply many times. With the same reason, the Russian really seems want to hold monopoly in this situation, that the European country can not argue. Because the Russia has big number stock of gas and oil, which is really force other European countries, as the loyal customers to do what the Russian want. Russia played an extremely important role in Europe future power supply. It had more than a quarter of the world’s natural gas reserves and circa 6% of its oil reserves. Those are the fact, that why European Union depend on their gas.

The impact can disturb the economic stabilization in Europe countries. When Russia started to close the supply to Ukraine, the south Europe countries like France, Italy really felt the impact in industrial size. For example, France only received 26% gas from 40%. We can say that France receive gas from decrease 14%. I believe that 14% is a big number to make the economic live in a country jammed. France really depends on the gas to run the industrial live. It proves that theh European countries really depend on the Russian gas, which distribute through Ukraine. The Eropean Union really want to reform the monopoly. Gazprom (Russian gas firm) has all the control in production, distribution, and price deciding, so the all the energy problem are controlled by Russian government. The European union had offered an agreement, in order to liberate the monopoly. But the Russian, had already rejected. Because Russia would supply the energy to European Countries with long term contract with clauses within. The clauses said that, there is territorial restriction, if a country receive the energy supply more than Russia, so the country is not allowed to sell the energy to other country. That clause make the Gazprom free to decide the gas price between the European countries. However, the European Union is bound with single market rule. Let’s begin that so called “love story” between Russia and Ukraine.

1990s

The dispute begun in 1990’s. This disputes came up after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russia stopped the export to the Ukraine several times in 1992-1994. In Septeber 1993,  at a summit confrence in Massandra, Crimea, the Russian President Boris Yeltsin offered to Ukraine President, Leonid Kravcuk, to forgive Ukrainian debts in return to control of the Black Sea Fleet and Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal. An intergovernmental agreement was drafted on gas issues, including a clause stating Ukraine would permit Gazprom to participate in the privatization of Ukrainian enterprises in gas and other sectors. In March 1994, a Ukrainian deputy prime minister agreed with Russia that Gazprom could get a 51% stake in the pipeline system. In early 1995, Russia and Ukraine agreed to create a joint company Gaztransit to operate Ukraine's natural gas transit infrastructure in exchange for the cancellation of a substantial portion of Ukraine's debts to Russia. These agreements were never used, and in November 1995, the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s Parliament adopted a law prohibiting the privatization the gas assets and oil.

In 1998, Gazprom and Naftogaz made a contract under which Gazprom would pay for the transit of volumes of gas, which established a link between gas prices and transit tariffs, but this contract did not solve the problem of the gas debts.  In 1998, Gazprom alleged that Ukraine had illegally diverted gas meant for export to other European countries and suspended exports of oil and electricity to Ukraine in 1999. Gazprom also demanded that Ukraine’s gas debt had reached 2,8 $ billion. In 2001, Deputy Prime Minister Oleh Dubyna knew that in 2000 alone 8-7 billion cubic metres (35 billion cubic feet) of Russian natural gas had been siphoned off from export pipelines. The debt issue was settled on October 4, 2001, by the signing of an intergovernmental agreement on Additional Measures Regarding the Provision of Transit of Russian Natural Gas on the Territory of Ukraine (the 2001 Transit Agreement).

2005-2006

In 2005, negotiations over gas prices for 2006 started. Gazprom had a new price of $160 per 1,000 cubic meters. The Ukraine Government had agreed with the conditions of the increasing the price were to be gradual, in return for increased gas transit fees and changing the method of payment for transit from payment in kind to cash. In May 2005, there was a problem that 7.8 billion cubic metres (280 billion cubic feet) of gas which Gazprom had deposited in Ukrainian storage reserve during the previous winter had not been made available to the company. We could say that it lost. It remained unclear if the gas was missing, had disappeared due to technical problems, or had been stolen. This problem had been resolved in May 2005. Gazprom, Naftogaz and RosUkrEnergo made an agreement that Naftogaz received 2.55 billion cubic metres (90 billion cubic feet) of gas as partial settlement of the Russian gas transit over 2005 services and 5.25 billion cubic metres (185 billion cubic feet) was sold by Gazprom to RosUkrEnergo who has to receive it from Naftogaz. However, the there was no deal. The agreement found the dead end. The negotiations between Gazprom and Naftogaz over gas prices and a new gas supply agreement failed. On January 1, 2006, Gazprom started reducing the pressure in the pipelines from Russia to Ukraine.

When Russia shut off the supply through Ukraine, the European countrie felt that the drop of their supplies as well. The several members said that the blocking of the gas supply was unacceptable. The one who said that unacceptable was The European Commisioner for Energy Andris Pielbags. The supply was restored on January 4, 2006, after the preliminary agreement between Ukraine and Gazprom was settled. The five-year contract was signed, although with prices set for only six months. According to the contract, the gas was sold not directly to Naftogaz, but to the intermediary Russian-Swiss company RosUkrEnergo. . The price of natural gas sold by Gazprom to RosUkrEnergo rose to $230 per 1,000 cubic metres, which, after mixing it in a proportion of one-third Russian gas to two-thirds cheaper supplies from Central Asia, was resold to Ukraine at a price of $95 per 1,000 cubic metres. The parties also agreed to raise the tariff for transit from US$1.09 to US$1.60 per 1,000 cubic meters per 100 km; this applied not only to the transit of Russian gas to Europe, but also Turkmen gas through Russia to Ukraine. The Presidentof Ukraine and Russia had confirmed that the conflict were solved.

2007-2008

On October 2, the Russia said that they would cut off the supply the gas to Ukraine because of the unpaid business, or we could said that unpaid debt $ 1,3 billion. This dispute appeared to be settled on October 8, 2007. On January 5, 2008, Gazprom warned Ukraine that it would reduce its gas supplies on January 11 if $1.5 billion in gas debts were not paid. Presidents Putin and Yushchenko announced on February 12, 2008, an agreement on the gas problem. Ukraine would begin paying off its debts for natural gas consumed in November–December 2007 and the price of $179.5 would be preserved in 2008. The President also decided to RosUkrEnergo and UkrGazEnergo, and creating them as the joint venture of Gazprom and Naftogaz.

At the end of February 2008, Gazprom threatened to reduce the supply of natural gas to Ukraine beginning on March 3, 2008, unless the pre-payment for 2008 was paid. The Ukrainian Goverment said that the payment was for the gas which was consumed in 2007, but refused to pay the bill for 2008.  A Gazprom spokesman claimed that the bill for 1.9 billion cubic metres (67 billion cubic feet) of gas deliveries to Ukraine valued around $600 million remained unpaid. Ukraine disagreed as that debt accumulated in recent months when Russia used its own gas to make up for a shortfall in less expensive Central Asian gas.

On March 3, Gazprom cut its shipments to Ukraine by 25% and an additional 25% the next day, claiming that the $1.5 billion debt still was not paid, although Ukrainian officials stated it had indeed been paid. The Gazprom restored the gas supply after the agreement between the leader of Gazprom and The Naftogaz, which the deal was made by phone. On March 6, the Ukrainian cabinet refused to execute the gas agreements made by presidents Yushchenko and Putin. The Ukrainian cabinet did not want to pay in advance for 2008, and it opposed the creation of a Naftogaz–Gazprom venture that would sell gas in Ukraine. Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko stated that Ukraine did not need any additional joint ventures, and as of March 1, 2008, UkrGazEnergo is no longer operating in Ukraine's domestic gas market.

2008-2009

The gas crisis of 2009 began with a failure to reach an agreement on gas prices and supplies for 2009. Ukraine owed a debt of $2.4 billion to Gazprom for gas already consumed, and Gazprom requested payment before the commencement of a new supply contract. In December 2008, despite Ukraine's repayment of more than $1 billion of its debt, Gazprom maintained its position, intending to cut the supply of natural gas to Ukraine on January 1, 2009, if Ukraine did not fully repay the remainder of $1.67 billion debt in natural gas supplies and an additional $450 million in fines levied by Gazprom.

In year 2008, Gazprom, did the same. Gazprom stopped the gas supply, because the Naftogaz (Ukrainian gas firm) could not pay the debt to Gazprom. Naftogaz could not pay $2 billion to Gazprom, for the supply in year 2008. The conflic was triggered by failure of  Moscow-Kiev agreement, about the gas price. The Gazprom want the Ukraine pay $450 per tcm. But Ukraine decided to reject the offer, with reason, Ukraine could only pay for $235 per tcm (thousand per metres). The Gazprom demanded $250 per tcm. Negotiations between Gazprom and Naftogaz were interrupted on December 31.

On January 1, 2009, exports to Ukraine of 90 million cubic meters of natural gas per day were halted completely at 10:00 MSK. Exports intended for transhipment to the EU continued at a volume of 300 million cubic meters per day. The Ukranian President wanted that the European Union involved in this issue to find the win solution of the gas crisis. On January 2, 2009, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland, reported the gas supply had dropped. It caused the supply gas to the Macedonia, Turkey, also dropped. Furthermore, the United Kingdom Government announced that it was preparing to enter its gas reserves after gas pressure had dropped from the continent.

On January 5, 2009, Kiev's economic court banned Naftogaz from transshipping Russian natural gas in 2009 at the price of $1.60 per 1,600 cubic meters per 100 kilometers. The court declared contracts made by Naftogaz for the transit of natural gas through Ukraine void because the contracts were signed by Naftogaz without authorization from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. On March 30, 2010, the Stockholm tribunal ordered Naftogas to pay RosUkrEnergo around $200 million as a penalty for various breaches of supply, transit, and storage contracts. On June 8, 2010, the tribunal ordered Naftogaz to return 11 billion cubic metres (390 billion cubic feet) of natural gas to RosUkrEnergo. The tribunal further ordered that RosUkrEnergo would receive from Naftogaz a further 1.1 billion cubic metres (39 billion cubic feet) of natural gas in lieu of RosUkrEnergo's damages for breach of contract.

On January 5, 2009, Vladmir Putin ordered the Gazprom leader to reduce natural gas exports to Europe via transhipment through Ukraine by quantities equivalent to the amounts of gas which Ukraine had allegedly siphoned from the pipelines since deliveries ended on January 1, 2009. On January 7, all Russian natural gas exports via Ukraine were halted amid accusations between the two parties. The countries that really felt the impact of the dropping supply were bulgaria, Moldova, and Slovakia.

Talks between Naftogaz and Gazprom resumed overnight on January 8, 2009. Ukraine agreed to guarantee the unfettered transport of natural gas on the condition that Gazprom would guarantee and supply technical gas for Ukraine's gas transit system to function; this was denied by Russia. The supplies to Europe were not restored although the European Union, Ukraine, and Russia agreed to the deployment of an international monitoring group to the gas metering stations between Russia and Ukraine. On January 17, 2009, Russia held an international gas conference in Moscow. The EU was represented by the Presidency, the Czech Minister of Industry and Trade , Martin Riman, and the EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, so that the European Union could speak with one voice. Ukraine was represented by the Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. The conference did not achieve any solution to the crisis, and the negotiations continued bilaterally between Prime Ministers Vladmir Putin and Yulia Tymoshenko. Early on January 18, 2009, after five hours of talks, they reached a deal to restore gas supplies to Europe and Ukraine. Both parties agreed that Ukraine would start paying European prices for its natural gas, less a 20% discount for 2009, and that Ukraine would pay the full European market price starting in 2010. In return for the discounts for 2009, Ukraine agreed to keep its transit fee for Russian gas  not changed in 2009. The two sides also agreed not to use intermediaries. Gas supplies restarted on January 20, 2009, and were fully restored on January 21.

Based on the EU Commission and Presidency, the Russia–Ukraine gas disputes caused irreparable and irreversible damage to customers' confidence in Russia and Ukraine, causing Russia and Ukraine to no longer be regarded as reliable partners. The disputes which happened again and again made other countries has to think more and more to make them the partner. According to reports, due to the gas crisis Gazprom lost more than $1.1 billion in revenue for the unsupplied gas. Ukraine also had losses as a result of the temporary closure of its steel and chemical industries due to the lack of gas. Ukraine also lost $100 million of potential revenue in transit fees from natural gas.

There were several theories as to alleged political motives behind the gas disputes, including Russia exerting pressure on Ukrainian politicians or attempting to subvert EU and NATO expansions to include Ukraine. The others also said that Ukraine was being controled by United States.

In August 2009, the Ukraine agreed to loan $1,7 billions from IMF, World Bank, and The European Bank for Research and Development, to help it provide stable supplies of Russian gas to Europe, in returns of the reform in Ukraine’s gas sector.

2010

After meeting, Vladimir Putin and Yulia Tymoshenko declared that no more drop in gas supply. Everything could be discussed and solve the crisis nicely. Yulia Tymoshenko also said that the Ukrainian and Russian premiers had agreed that sanctions would not be imposed on Ukraine for the country buying less gas than expected and that the price of Russian gas transit across Ukraine may grow 65% till 70% in 2010. A week before Gazprom had said it expected gas transit fees via Ukraine to rise by up to 59 percent in 2010. On October 8, 2009 Tymoshenko announced that Ukrainian 2010 natural gas imports will be significantly less than in previous years "because we have less need for natural gas". Because of its economic recession, the industries need less gas.

On December 16, 2009, the European Comissoner of Energy Mr. Andris Pielbags said that the both side, Russia and Ukraine do not expect the issue about the gas conflict. On November 24, 2009 Gazprom and Naftogaz signed these supplements to the contract of 19 January 2009 on the purchase and sale of natural gas; according to the supplements, the annual contracted amount of gas to be supplied to Ukraine in 2010 has been set at 33.75 billion cubic metres (1.192 trillion cubic feet), instead of the 52 billion cubic metres (1.8 trillion cubic feet) contracted earlier. The documents signed by the sides also stipulated that there will be no fines related to the amount of gas consumed by Naftogaz in 2009. Over the first ten months of 2009 Naftogaz has purchased 18.85 billion cubic metres (666 billion cubic feet) of gas with the contracted volume being 31.7 billion cubic metres (1.12 trillion cubic feet).

Late March 2010, Ukranian prime Minister Mykola Azarov and Energy Minister Yuri Boyko, were in Moscow to negotiated the lower gas prices. In April 21 2010, Russia President Dmitry Medvedev and the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich signed an agreement that Russia agree to drop 30% in the price of the gas which sell to Ukraine.

Critical Review

Would be this dispute appear again next year? Or this issue will not happen again? It would be a good question, because from 1990s, until 2010 the problem is just finish. The interest of both countries seems block the interest of the other countries in Europe. this was the crucial disputes which happened in Europe. Firstly, to reach the deal, it was really hard, because it was all about the debts, agreement. The other countries were trying to find another partner in gas solution. Because they think, if they still depend on their gas, what just could happen if the crisis come back? They can not do such a thing, and they just wait until they make a new agreement and resolve the issue. There were not only the gas problem actually. As i see this disputes drag Russia and Ukraine in political talks. So we conclude that not only about gas, but also about the politics between two countries. Many people also believe that there was an intervention from the United States of America in the Ukraine.

This issue happened almost 20 years. First the disputes begun in 1990s and the last in 2010s. We can imagine, the fluctuation in the economic condition in Europe. These two countries made the other countries wait. Even the European Union seems effortless to carry the agreement between two countries, (Russia and Ukraine) back in the right track.

This problem should be clear within days. If the both countries want to discuss it. There are many way to solve this issue. In order to solve this issue, the Russia or Ukraine could ask the European Union to do the favor. For example to harmonizing the energy policy. The European Union should make a comprehensif strategy in the external connection with exportir. For example, the European Union will give the information about international agreement in export energy. In order to solve the problem. Maybe this conflict won’t be occur if in the first time the European Union make a comprehensif strategy. Second is the agreement with third national countries like Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan could be negotiated ini European Union level. Third is the European Union will offer the cooperation with Mediterranian countries. Fourth is the European Union should discuss about the new energy source, like nuclear.

With all that policies, maybe could make the negotiation a little bit softer. And the conflict between Russia and Ukraine could not happen. Although the negotiation goes softer, Russia often to do the political pressure to the country which the countries are passed by the gas pipe. The European Union should be brave to invest more to the countries in middle Asia. It is very important, when the conflict like this occur, the European countries don’t have to worry, because the supplier is not only the Russia. We all know to build the pipe from middle Asia to Europe is very high cost. But we have to see the advantages behind all of the disadvantages. When the gas supply stop from Russia, the revenue of other customers countries will decrease. Because the economic get stucked. The industrial goes weakly. It could be much worst if the supply stop for a long time, and the customers countries only have Russia, as the one and only supplier. Maybe this crisis would not be occur, if they have more than one suppliers. Or maybe developing new power, such as nuclear, or electricity, of maybe oil that also impotant for the industrialization. Why don’t the European countries make a deal with the oil country in middle east. But apparently the European countries are not like United States. They intervene the countries in middle east to fall one regimn. But i do believe behind the intervention of United States, there is also a hidden agenda. We can not speculate what it is? It could be the monopolize of oil in that area or something else.

Once more the Russia show us, that she hold the important role of the economic condition in Europe. The economic could also lead to war. Can you imagine the impact if this problem undone. The industrialization in Europe will go down, many companies collapse, many unemployment, and moreover, they can not fund their military support, in order to prevent the threat from outside.

It’s once more show us that how powerful Russia in European Union. They had enough supply for the future. They have spare in gas and oil.

What Can We Get

What we can get from this topic is we must have more plan in order to avoid something that we really don’t want to expect. There always plans, strategy, in order to bring the stabilization not only in one country, but also for the neighbour countries. I strongly believe that this conflict could finish, if all the aspects want to discuss it together without bring our self interest. And also find another energy sources, so we don’t have to nailed down in one source. If we can open diplomacy relations to other country, it can bring good impact to our country such as, if there is a problem, we can solve it through discussion, not a war. Because if we decided to war, it really means that we will break the political stabilization, economic stabilization, bureaucracy stabilization in our country. Well in fact, not only in our country, but also for the union. This conflict occur in Europe, than it will crush the stabilization in European Union. Because the drawbacks to other neighbour countries. If the conflict for example occer in Asean, the stabilization about economic, politic, and so on will disturbed. And also the security of the union will steadily decrease.

And the most important also is the law enforcement. In a union, we should establish the security council. In order to reduce the conflict between the members within. Or maybe we can ask other super power country as a third side, when the things get ugly. Many countries believe if they join in an union, it will give then many eases. For example in diplomatic cooperation, they will send the ambassador each other to strengthen the diplomatic relations. Or maybe in trade cooperation. Each countries get the ease to trading in one area. The member of the union will need the free trade. Free trade is helpfull to fulfill the needs of each country. I believe every single problem in this world, especially international problem like this, could solve. As long as we are as the member of the union want to discuss and try to put aside our self interest.

Now, the European felt the bad impact from the crisis. The crisis fron Greece, and now, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. After this, the Italy, and Spain, need the European Union to free from the debts. They have to think fast. To avoid all the crisis in the union. If they don’t act fast, to solve the problem, another issues already wait. How to face it? The will to solve the problem should be in every members brains. In my short opinion, first the will to solve the problem, and the second the initiative to start the discussion, will be the best weapon to end every issue. Not with deploy the war, but through discussion. The wind no more blows to the west but to the east. Europe, or maybe after this America will goes down. Europe and The United States had a economic crisis. Now the countries in Asia, such as China, India, Japan, South Korea are more stable. The raise of the Asia nation will demand the United State and Europe to out from the crisis. I believe that the United State and The European Countres will fight to bring their empire back.

I imagine if this dispute occur in my country Indonesia. For example my country as the source of the energy, and the Malaysia as the only way to distribute the gas or as the pipelines to the other south east countries. And the Malaysian can not pay the debts, and make the distribution stop. The Gas supply for the Thailand drop, and also Vietnam. The Industrial condition in Thailand and Vietnam stop for a while. It demands the revenue of  Thailand and Vietnam a little bit decrease. Who should be blame?

It is hard to argue, that who should be blame. We can not in one side blame the Malaysian. It should be an agreement. The agreement that maintain until ten years ahead or something like that. We know. Every conditions could happen. It is dynamic. But if we had a great diplomacy we can solve the problem easier. We can not afford to be naif that we have to give  precedence to the together interest. But it has to be first thing to negotiate. In order to make the negotiate faster, sometimes we also need the third side. To help, when the discussion finds the dead end.

It would be better to solve the important one. It would be better if we maintain the peace than a war. Imagine if the dispute in Europe did not done. War could be happen after that. But it will be a little funny, but the war will powerless. Because the economic is related with the power. The economic will fund the military power. Strong State + Strong power = less threaten fron other country. But when the economic goes weak, and they can not fund their military power, what that could be? It’s just like send a starving soldier in to the battle field.

If a state has a great economic condition, it will give the impact to the power. The military power will be strong. After we can see the two aspect in the state alredy fullfiled, we can say that the state is wealthy. The wealth, economic and power are related each other. For example a state does have a strong power, military power, but the revenue it only used for developing military force, it gotta be like Sovjet Union. Many countries borned because of separated from the Soviet Union. After that, we can not say that the State is wealthy. Another example, a state with strong economic growth, but no fund for the military power. We also can not say that the country is wealthy. Because she will be so easy to be intervened through the military force by other state.

The State like America. One of the perfect state. She does have a strong military power, and also strong economic, even nowadays it seems goes down. But the United State is still a country which has very big influence for others, one of the model that other countries should be like that.

Last conclusion, disputes between Russia and Ukrainewas stoppable. Every issue in this world are solvable. If we have the good diplomacy, and we give the precedence to the interest of all, every problem could be negotiate. It would be better to negotiate than have a war. No one expect a war. Because sometimes negotiation could go though. And if you think, war is the fastest way to end a problem, i can not say it is right. But no one want to cost the lives, infrastructures and others. The cost of the war is very expensive. So we better maintain the peace through the negotiation.

She

have you ever meet a lady, who you think is really wonderful? I mean, a lady that you will do everything for her. why i write this thing, because i did. i never meet a lady like that. she is so nice, simple, she's different. but unfortunately, i cannot have her. maybe the bad english's song is right, "when i see you smile, i can face the world"

and now, i assume that, she is a myth that i have to believe in. i don't know if i could meet a lady like that again.

My Historical background.

Namaku Andi Ibrahim Ali. lahir di Jakarta 21 tahun silam. Aku anak pertama dari 2 bersaudara, cucu pertama dari keluarga nyokap, dan cucu laki-laki pertama dari keluarga bokap. Dari umur 3 tahun aku sudah masuk TK. Aku mengenyam TK cukup lama, 2 tahun. Harusnya lulus TK, aku masuk ke sekolah dasar, tapi karena aku terlalu cepat, jadi aku harus sekolah TK lagi. Akhirnya aku bisa masuk SD umur 5 tahun, meskipun awalnya harus berdebat dulu dengan kepala sekolah. Beliau takut, aku tidak bisa survive di SD, karena masih terlalu muda. But, sampai kelas 6, aku baik-baik saja, tidak ada kesulitan yang berarti buat ku. Selesai SD, aku melanjutkan ke SMP negeri di Cikini. Satu kata buat sekolah SMPku, cool. Aku yang cuma anak cupu, dari Bekasi pindah ke SMP Jakarta, ternyata cukup sulit untuk mendapat teman. Tapi karena pada waktu itu ketika aku sempat dibilang, pemain bass yang ok, jadi, sampai kelas 3 SMP, aku punya banyak teman, bahkan aku cukup terkenal. Masuk SMA, aku mulai mencari jati diri, awal SMA, aku udah nyoba yang namanya rokok lah, minum-minuman lah, coba nyari cewe lah, dan, emang itu semua aku lakuin. SMA kelas 1 aku pindah, karena pada saat itu nilaiku tidak cukup untuk masuk kelas IPA. Aku pindah ke SMA negeri di daerah Gambir, dan aku dapat IPA disana. Di SMA aku inilah, aku ngerasain yang namanya pacaran, bener-bener rasain yang namanya pacaran. Meskipun pacaran bukan sama temen di SMA, tapi malah sama tetanggaku. Lulus SMA, aku putusin untuk kuliah di Jerman. Aku berangkat kesana, dengan harapan besar, lulus darisana, kembali ke Indonesia, bangun Indonesia yang masih bobrok ini. Ternyata ALLAH berkehendak lain. Tahun 2011 kemarin, aku harus pulang ke Indonesia, karena masalah financial keluargaku. Aku putuskan untuk balik ke Indonesia. Meskipun nyesel itu ada, tapi, semua itu ada hikmahnya. Mungkin ALLAH mau aku jadi orang yang tegar, meskipun sampai sekarang, aku juga susah untuk tegar.

Sekarang aku kembali kuliah di Univ swasta di daerah Cikarang. Nice to be here, but panasnya memang parah, maklum kampusnya ada di daerah pabrik. Sekarang aku mahasiswa HI, jurusan yang awalnya aku ambil karena ikut-ikut teman, tapi aku temukan duniaku. Inilah awal dari sampah pikiran di blog.