THE END OF COLD WAR 1979-1991


THE END OF USSR

As Soviet leader changed from Breznev to Gorbachev, from Nixon to Reagan; each leader was occupied with a distinct personality. Both leader either from US and Soviet Union has to face a major changes within their domestic politic. These two leaders were elected in the era USSR power gradually declining and losing its control over its satellite states.

Gorbachev inherits domestic crisis due to its harsh winter and economic recession. While United states has Reagan find a new strategic of diplomacy, leaving atomic diplomacy behind through agreement on SALT I and SALT II, diplomacy executed by Reagan is majority directed towards prevention.

Preventive diplomacy implemented within the agreement in 1985 saying that both parties agree to reduce their nuclear arsenal by 50 %. United states was in time ready to exercise its defense strategy in order to counter SU further hegemony.

The end of USSR was basically occurred because the internal upheavals within Soviet union border. As capitalist countries grows more modernized in which transfer technology was permitted, has made the such countries within Western europe face a sophisticated life, create more jobs and hold a rapid development on their economical life.

This creates a sentimental thoughts for people in SU satellite states to come in and have a better life. People starts to think that a capitalist world was much even better than living in SU iron curtain in which their freedom was totally banned. They had been urged by central government of SU to live under spionage. Then people living in those satellite states demanded for a revolution and break up from SU totalitarian regime. This has been a major issue that dominantly generates upheavals. As Czechoslovakia succeedly held revolution has caused a widespread confidence among satellite states to do the same.

One of the crucial example marked the process of SU comes to an end was the fall of Berlin’s wall in 9 November 1989.

EUROPE AND THE FALL OF BERLIN’S WALL

The fall of Berlin wall is argued as a symbolic manner in the following USSR break up. The process of USSR end is crucially seen as a chain of actions that are multifactorial. The first process includes Economic upheavals make USSR unable to fund his satellite states whenever they are in need of help due to its incapability to keep up with capitalist countries, such as western europe, japan, several south and southern asia.

Second, the Gorbachev’s policy encompasses reformation and openness, so called glasnost and perestroika, as a call for an opened market economic and modernized transfer technology are seen as a false move. Shortly, it’s implying that Soviet union wasn’t ready enough to maintain its unstability of huge migration, people are inclined to move from East-poorest to West-modernized country. Fortunately, Gorbachev failed to prevent his satellite states from falling apart.

Third, there was no available option for Gorbachev to counter US. This due to Gorbachev inherits unfavorable social and political condition from Breznev. Soviet union was to much focus himself on heavy industry of steel, coal, oil etc while he neglects the basic need of his people. People can’t feed themselves with neither missiles and weapons. This SU situation was hugely different from what US had. US was equipped with far more favorable condition of fine entertainment of Hollywood, fine medias coverage, and new technology.

SOURCE

Bernard Wasserstein. 2008. The History of Europe. New York: Oxford Press University

Modern Diplomacy and 9/11


9 11 matters

After the 2001 attacks, people around the world expressed shock and support for the U.S. government. Since then, however, negative attitudes about America have increased and become more intense, not just within Muslim populations, but worldwide. The Iraq War, begun in March 2003, exacerbated negative opinions of America in virtually every country polled — both traditional allies and non allies.

Today, there is a realization that strong negative public opinion about the United States could affect how helpful countries will be in the war on terrorism. Moreover, negative sentiment might assist terrorist groups in recruiting new members. Therefore in recent years a sense of urgency to utilize public diplomacy to the maximum extent possible has been expressed by top level officials, think tanks, and the 9/11 Commission.

9/11 and the public diplomacy

Public diplomacy is, very simply, diplomacy aimed at publics, as opposed to officials. While some people associate public diplomacy with commercial marketing – that is, with building a national brand – the truth is that public diplomacy, like official diplomacy and like military action when it  becomes necessary, has as its mission the achievement of the national interest. Public diplomacy performs this mission in a particular way: by understanding, informing, engaging, and persuading foreign publics. So the aim in public diplomacy is to engage foreign publics.

Public diplomacy is the promotion of America’s interests, culture and policies by informing and influencing foreign populations. Immediately after the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush Administration found itself in, not only a military, but also a public diplomacy war on terrorism. Right after September 11th, public diplomacy worked.

Target of public diplomacy

The U.S. government has always targeted public diplomacy to some degree. From its earliest years, public diplomacy was targeted to reach audiences in Europe to influence the outcome of World War I and World War II. It was later used primarily in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to help end the Cold War.

An actual actions done in recent years, Congress and the Administration have sought ways to use public diplomacy tools to influence Muslim and Arab populations to combat terrorism, improve coordination of public diplomacy activities throughout the government (via the Policy Coordinating Committee, or PCC), increase funding through regular and supplemental appropriations, and better evaluate current programs to gain future effectiveness.

While the 9/11 terrorist attacks rallied unprecedented support abroad for the United States initially, they also heightened the awareness among government officials and terrorism experts that a significant number of people, especially within Muslim populations, harbor enough hatred for America so as to become a pool for terrorists. Over time it became clear that for the global war on terrorism to succeed, sustained cooperation from around the world would be require.
In the years prior to September 11th, both Congress and the various administrations downplayed the importance of funding public diplomacy activities, and in 1999 abolished the primary public diplomacy agency — the U.S. Information Agency (USIA). Public diplomacy often was viewed as less important than political and military functions and, therefore, was seen by some legislators as a pot of money that could be tapped for funding other government activities.
Even prior to the 2001 attacks, a number of decisions by the Bush Administration, including refusing to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the Chemical Weapons Ban, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, damaged foreign opinion of the United States. After the decision to go to war with Iraq, much foreign opinion of the United States fell sharply, not only in the Arab and Muslim world, but even among some of America’s closest allies. Some foreign policy and public diplomacy experts believe that using public diplomacy to provide clear and honest explanations of why those decisions were made could have prevented some of the loss of support in the war on terrorism.

Many U.S. policymakers now recognize the importance of how America and its policies are perceived abroad. A former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and both chairmen of the 9/11 Commission expressed the view that public diplomacy tools are at least as important in the war on terrorism as military tools and should be given equal status and increased funding. As a result of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (S. 2845, P.L. 108-458) which included provisions expanding public diplomacy activities in Muslim populations.

At the same time, some believe that there are limits to what public diplomacy can do when the problem is not foreign misperception of America, but rather disagreements with specific U.S. foreign policies. A major expansion of U.S. public diplomacy activities and funding cannot change that, they say.
This report presents the challenges that have focused renewed attention on public diplomacy, provides background on public diplomacy, actions the Administration and Congress have taken since 9/11 to make public diplomacy more effective, as well as recommendations offered by others, particularly the 9/11 Commission. It will be updated if events warrant[1].

As the American Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said recently, ‘Over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. Non-military efforts – …tools of persuasion and inspiration – were indispensable to the outcome of the defining struggle of the 20th century. They are just as indispensable in the 21st century – and perhaps even more so.’ This is a statement that helps define the new age of public diplomacy. And, as the words of the Pentagon’s master reflect, there is now a broad consensus in Washington that public diplomacy is essential to defeating the violent extremist threat, to promoting freedom and social justice – to reordering the pieces of the kaleidoscope. In fact, I would argue – and many in the Pentagon would agree – that, in this struggle, ideas are more important than bullets.

There are four parts of our public diplomacy effort:

  1. Education and cultural affairs
  2. International information programmes
  3. US international broadcasting

Ideological engangement-emphasizing war of ideas as opposed to war of bombs and weapons. The focus of today’s war of ideas is counter terrorsim. The mission today in the war of ideas is highly focused on the use tools of ideological engagement – words, deeds, and images – to create an environment hostile to violent extremism[2].

Conclusion

Public diplomacy is one of numerous tools that the United States has used since the early 20th century to promote U.S. interests abroad. Over the decades since its formal authorization by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, views have fluctuated between vigorously supporting public diplomacy as a highly valuable foreign policy tool and disparaging it as a government program with no constituency and uncertain long-term benefits. After the end of the Cold War, many in Congress questioned the expense and abolished the USIA, moving public diplomacy into the Department of State where it could be more closely coordinated with other foreign policy tools. Since the terrorist attacks in 2001, many in Congress have advocated an increase in public diplomacy funding to “win the hearts and minds of Muslims” and, perhaps, help prevent future attacks. The 9/11 Commission Report agreed with significantly increasing the budget and status of public diplomacy as has been done with the military.

Some foreign policy experts and Members of Congress have cautioned, however, that public diplomacy is only good if the message is credible. Recent worldwide polls show that the United States government continues to be viewed with skepticism by much of the world, not just among Arab and Muslim populations. When the message isn’t consistent with what people see or experience independently, many assert, public diplomacy is not effective. Furthermore, they say, if U.S. foreign policy is the primary cause of negative foreign opinion, then public diplomacy may be less effective than lawmakers would like. America could benefit, however, if in this view, the government uses public diplomacy more proactively to clearly and truthfully explain U.S. foreign policy actions, rather than appearing indifferent to world opinion.


[1] https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/2230

[2] Glassman, James. 2008. The New age of Public Diplomacy.

THE END OF COLD WAR 1979-1991


THE END OF USSR

As Soviet leader changed from Breznev to Gorbachev, from Nixon to Reagan; each leader was occupied with a distinct personality. Both leader either from US and Soviet Union has to face a major changes within their domestic politic. These two leaders were elected in the era USSR power gradually declining and losing its control over its satellite states.

Gorbachev inherits domestic crisis due to its harsh winter and economic recession. While United states has Reagan find a new strategic of diplomacy, leaving atomic diplomacy behind through agreement on SALT I and SALT II, diplomacy executed by Reagan is majority directed towards prevention.

Preventive diplomacy implemented within the agreement in 1985 saying that both parties agree to reduce their nuclear arsenal by 50 %. United states was in time ready to exercise its defense strategy in order to counter SU further hegemony.

The end of USSR was basically occurred because the internal upheavals within Soviet union border. As capitalist countries grows more modernized in which transfer technology was permitted, has made the such countries within Western europe face a sophisticated life, create more jobs and hold a rapid development on their economical life.

This creates a sentimental thoughts for people in SU satellite states to come in and have a better life. People starts to think that a capitalist world was much even better than living in SU iron curtain in which their freedom was totally banned. They had been urged by central government of SU to live under spionage. Then people living in those satellite states demanded for a revolution and break up from SU totalitarian regime. This has been a major issue that dominantly generates upheavals. As Czechoslovakia succeedly held revolution has caused a widespread confidence among satellite states to do the same.

One of the crucial example marked the process of SU comes to an end was the fall of Berlin’s wall in 9 November 1989.

EUROPE AND THE FALL OF BERLIN’S WALL

The fall of Berlin wall is argued as a symbolic manner in the following USSR break up. The process of USSR end is crucially seen as a chain of actions that are multifactorial. The first process includes Economic upheavals make USSR unable to fund his satellite states whenever they are in need of help due to its incapability to keep up with capitalist countries, such as western europe, japan, several south and southern asia.

Second, the Gorbachev’s policy encompasses reformation and openness, so called glasnost and perestroika, as a call for an opened market economic and modernized transfer technology are seen as a false move. Shortly, it’s implying that Soviet union wasn’t ready enough to maintain its unstability of huge migration, people are inclined to move from East-poorest to West-modernized country. Fortunately, Gorbachev failed to prevent his satellite states from falling apart.

Third, there was no available option for Gorbachev to counter US. This due to Gorbachev inherits unfavorable social and political condition from Breznev. Soviet union was to much focus himself on heavy industry of steel, coal, oil etc while he neglects the basic need of his people. People can’t feed themselves with neither missiles and weapons. This SU situation was hugely different from what US had. US was equipped with far more favorable condition of fine entertainment of Hollywood, fine medias coverage, and new technology.

SOURCE

Bernard Wasserstein. 2008. The History of Europe. New York: Oxford Press University

THE SUPERPOWER COMPETITION


EMERGING NATIONS/ NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT

As the world war II ends, it produces a large decolonization. A large decolonization is emerged as a call for a growing nationalism. Growing nationalism has its own importance to breed several new states embedded with opportunity grow as a powerful states. One of instances are Indonesia, liberated from Holland; Egypt liberated from France; Iran liberated from United Kingdom; India liberated from United Kingdom.

Nationalism was already inside decolonization. Sometime nationalism has been a tool to demonstrate a power as Japan did in the same year of cold war. Another value of nationalism was to deminish central power possesed by several great empires such as Great Britain, France, and Portugal. Nationalism has been a symbol for United States as well to emphasize its domination in a world after world war I.

As cold war initiates its bloc division between East-West, terminology emanated to define power competition between US-capitalist and USSR-communist. Looking forward to escaping between two blocs, India and Indonesia initiate a new bloc of neutral, which then so called non-alignment movement.

Non-alignment movement is first initiated through small and regional conference where discussion then established between new emerging nations such as India and Indonesia. Having a similar history background, together Indonesia and India encourages several countries with the same background reason to join their union in Bandung conference. The first time leaders of Indonesia and India invites media to record their agenda within Bandung conference. It is an agenda to establich non-alignment movement that suggests a neutral bloc to avoid falling into conflicts between US and USSR.

As Bandung conference has result for non-alignment movement with its members range from Indonesia-Soekarno, India-Jawaharlal Nehru, Egypt-Gamal Abdul Nasser, Yugoslavia-Joseph Bros Tito, and Sri Lanka; there are some contries remained pro-western that is iran, iraq, Saudan, and Libya. While on the opposite, another countries remained communists such as China and vietnam. Another neutral movement mainly coming from African countries join Bandung conference as a call of new power of independent countries.

Review singkat sejarah diplomasi: Balance of Power and Napoleon War (1806)


Praktik diplomasi di awal abad dua puluh memiliki sejarah panjang. Perang dunia I disnyalir sebagai salah satu akibat gagalnya diplomasi. Tentu saja, terlalu dini untuk mengatakan demikian. Berangkat dari proposisi “diplomasi yang gagal” telah mengakibatkan perang, kita juga gagal untuk mengelak dari asumsi yang mengatakan diplomat saat itu kompeten, cerdas, dan cukup bodoh. Sehingga diplomat saat itu dinilai gagal melakukan fungsi dan tugasnya.

Berbagai pertanyaan muncul untuk menjawab: apa yang melatarbelakangi peperangan antarnegara di Eropa? Mengapa dampak yang ditimbulkan mendunia sementara yang berperang hanya beberapa negara saja? Sejauh mana diplomasi dilaksanakan pada abad dua puluh? Bagaimana peran  aktor-aktor diplomasi dan sejauh mana dampaknya dalam usaha mencegah perang?

Untuk menjawab pertanyaan di atas, mari kita mulai dengan mengulang review sejarah Eropa secara singkat.

Peperangan yang terjadi di mana-mana tidak lepas dari banyak sebab. Manusia akan terus menerus mencari ruang gerak yang lebih. Perluasan teritori menentang status quo yang ada membuat gemetar tetangga terdekatnya. Aliansi dibentuk berdasarkan kesamaan musuh yang dibalut dengan keinginan bekerjasama dan ikatan kultural yang kuat.

Perang bertahun-tahun membuat prajurit lelah bertarung, diplomat mati berargumen, dan raja turun tahta. Perang tiga puluh tahun diakhiri di Westphalia, untuk pertama kalinya perjanjian tertulis dan teritori diakui secara de facto. Norma tertulis Westphalia diakui mampu menjaga kestabilan politik eropa saat itu selama empat puluh tahun. Westphalia terbukti mengakhiri perang tetapi tidak terbukti secara efektif menciptakan perdamaian.

Ekspansi wilayah Napoleon Perancis, menggoyah status quo yang pelihara Westphalia, menciptakan perang Napoleon Perancis melawan Empat Kekuatan Besar yakni Russia, Prussia, Austria-Habsburg, Inggris. Perang sekali lagi diakhiri dalam kongres Vienna yang mengakibatkan Napoleon diasingkan dan Alsace dan Loraine diberikan pada Austria-Habsburg. Status quo kembali dipertahankan dengan sisa-sisa kekuatan yang menjadi hegemoni Eropa.

Setelah Perang Diplomasi: Usaha-Usaha dan Kegagalan Dalam Usaha Menjaga Perdamaian


PENDAHULUAN

Perjanjian Versailles ditandatangani sebagai kesepakatan bersama untuk mengakhiri perang dunia I. Versailles merupakan buah pikir negara pemenang perang seperti Perancis, Italia, Inggris, Amerika. Dengan absenya Rusia karena pergolakan internal pasca perang dunia I, tidak mencegah perjanjian Versailles menjelma menjadi semacam legitimasi kejahatan perang yang dibebankan pada Jerman.

Versailles membuahkan beberapa istilah yang kemudian lazim dikenal dengan war guilt, mandatory system, dan self determination. Selain itu, Versailles menandai terb itnya ide-ide Wilsonian yang tertuang dalam keempat belas poinnya. Di antara keempat belas poin tersebut tersirat kebutuhan vital terhadap institusi internasional. inilah yang menjadi platform fundamental pendirian Liga Bangsa-bangsa. Diharapkan LBB sanggup meletakkan semua negara dalam posisi sejajar di kancah internasional.

SELF DETERMINATION

Self determinasi terkandung hak sekelompok bangsa untuk memerintah dirinya sendiri dengan berdasarkan pada kedaulatan terhadap teritorial masing-masing (Carruthers, 56: 2002). Munculnya beberapa negara baru seperti Yugoslavia-Herzegovina, Serbia Montenegro, Austria, Hungaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Polandia merupakan dampak pengakuan self determinasi. Self determinasi memperoleh legitimasi secara politis melalui empat belas nilai-nilai Wilsonian.

Self determinasi menjadi perayaan legitimasi secara teritorial beberapa negara yang sebelumnya bahkan tidak pernah “eksis”. Sayangnya mereka tidak dibekali aparatur pemerintahan yang sempurna. Seolah-olah mereka dibentuk dalam keterdesakan dan pemetaan politik yang terkesan dipaksakan guna memecah skala kekuatan besar (Jerman dan Austria-Hungary) menjadi skala kekuatan kecil.

Akibat dari self determinasi antara lain menempatkan Jerman seolah-olah dikepung oleh negara mikro yang powerless dan rentan. Sementara Austria-Hungary kehilangan kejayaannya layaknya Kekaisaran Roman Suci pada awal abad pertengahan lalu, negara-negara baru tersebut di atas menderita karena tidak dibekali dengan daya tahan ekonomi yang efisien guna menunjang kemajuan mereka.

Hadirnya revolusi Rusia “Bolsheviks” yang dimotori oleh Lenin seakan hendak menjanjikan pada dunia bahwa revolusinya merupakan titik awal revolusi dunia. Kenyataan faktual ketika Lenin memperkuat dirinya dengan federasi yang dibentuk di bawah panji Coomunist International (Comintern) membuat Perancis dan Inggris waspada. Inggris dan Perancis mencari-cari upaya untuk membetengi Lenin. Salah satunya adalah dengan menempatkan negara-negara baru dengan embel-embel self determination di ujung tombak. Suatu bonus jika negara-negara tersebut memiliki pandangan antikomunis.

Ketakutan Perancis dan Inggris sangat beralasan ketika mereka kemudian mendirikan aliansi guna membentengi kekuatan negara-negara di atas. Dalam hal ini self determinasi dan aliansi merupakan kedua hal sinergis menjelaskan kecemasan Inggris dan Perancis.

PAKTA LOCARNO, PAKTA RAPPALO, DAN PAKTA BRIAN-KELLOG

14 POIN WOODROW WILSON

Empat belas poin Woodrow Wilson diyakini merupakan serangkaian nilai-nilai idealis semata yang sulit diwujudkan dalam perspektif realis klasik. Walaupun demikian, pada masanya Wilson telah berhasil menyusun sejumlah nilai-nilai yang mesti dihargai oleh negara-negara dunia guna mencegah perang. Hal ini kemudian menjadi pondasi utama cikal bakal Liga Bangsa-bangsa.

Bentuk manifestasi nilai-nilai Wilson ini antara lain secara garis besar tertuang ke dalam self determinasi (hak untuk bebas menentukan nasib sendiri dan bebas intervensi asing), pengakuan batas-batas teritorial suatu negara berdasarkan nasionalitas masing-masing dan serta daerah kolonialnya, kebebasan mutlak navigasi laut (tidak lagi didominering oleh British), pengurangan angakatan bersenjata—no need for arm race, penghapusan batas-batas ekonomi, dan yang paling krusial adalah kebutuhan akan adanya institusi nasional sebagai asosiasi terbuka bagi negara-negara.

DAMPAK DEPRESI EKONOMI AMERIKA 1929-1933

  1. Era “Conservative Internationalism” dan pinjaman-pinjaman asing AS dan German reparations

Setelah Presiden Woodrow Wilson mangkat dan digantikan oleh Warren Harding pada pemilu tahun 1920, kebijakan luar negeri Amerika mendapat angin baru. Berbeda dengan Woodrow Wilson yang sanggup memposisikan kebijakan luar negeri Amerika secara signifikan aktif dalam hubungan internasional, Warren Harding hanya mampu sedikit peduli pada urusan luar negeri. Sisa kepeduliannya terhadap dunia internasional tercermin pada penunjukan sekelompok individu yang benar memiliki perhatian terhadap permasalahan internasional. Rumusan kebijakan luar negeri AS berikut kegiatan diplomasi dan negosiasi internasionalnya diserahkan sepenuhnya kepada kabinet papan atasnya. Sebagian besar kebijakan luar negeri diterjemahkan ke dalam era conservative internationalism.

Conservative internationalism mengandung pengertian hubungan luar negeri AS yang didasarkan pada kepentingan nasional dengan prioritas utama kekuatan militer, dan ekonomi perdagangan pada prioritas selanjutnya disertai keyakinan bahwa pola hubungan internasional banyak diarahkan oleh negara sebagai aktor tunggal.

Pinjaman luar negeri amerika berkaitan erat dengan German reparation. Berasal dari isi perjanjian Versailles yang melegitimasi beban perang dan hutang Inggris-Perancis. Pembayaran Jerman kepada Inggris-Perancis ini secara khusus diatur oleh lembaga yang disebut reparation commision. Jerman dikenai sangsi wajib melakukan pembayaran kepada Inggris-Perancis sebesar 5 juta emas Amerika setiap tahunnya dengan pembayaran sekali setiap semester.

Sistem di atas bertahan hanya selama dua tahun. Jerman menolak kenaikan bunga akibat beban tagihan, dan lebih memilih untuk mencetak uang sendiri. Akibatnya Jerman dilanda inflasi, menyebabkan tabungan orang-orang kelas atas Jerman seketika ludes. Hal ini justru memperparah kondisi perekonomiannya. Sehingga pembayaran Jerman terhadap Inggris-Perancis menunggak. Pembayaran hutang Jerman yang menunggak mengakibatkan Perancis bereaksi dengan mengirim tentaranlya untuk menduduki basis industri Jerman di Ruhr.

Inggris menilai pendudukan Perancis di Ruhr merupakan suatu kesalahan seolah sengaja memprovokasi perang baru. Padahal saat itu kubu pemenang secara ekonomi telah bobrok, bahkan untuk berperang pun sangat tidak masuk akal.

Seakan suatu siklus yang tidak ada kepala dan ekornya, di sisi lain AS melihat kegagalan pembayaran oleh Jerman merupakan kegagalan lain di pihak Inggris-Perancis untuk melunasi hutang-hutangnya pada Amerika. Melihat kepentingan tersebut, AS melalui Dawes Plan menawarkan jalan keluar bagi Jerman dengan kemudahan pembayaran. Hasilnya, melalui negosiasi oleh Charles G Dawes, ketua komisi reparasi yang baru, pembayaran Jerman kepada Inggris-Perancis disetujui berkurang 2.5 juta yang dibayar dengan jangka waktu lima puluh tahun ke depan, dan Perancis pun bersedia menarik pasukannya dari Ruhr.

Seketika lima tahun mendatang, industri Jerman mengalami peningkatan dan penduduknya kembali bekerja. Tentu saja secara “diam-diam”, AS mempelopori peminjaman besar-besaran pada Jerman. Hal ini tidak lepas dari rasa kecewa perbankan AS—motif ekonomi lelah karena Inggris-Perancis memiliki hutang terus menerus AS; mereka tidak merasa menyesal untuk menyumbang demi kebangkitan ekonomi industri Jerman. Oleh karena itu, kebangkitan ekonomi Jerman memiliki korelasi kuat dengan sejumlah pinjaman-pinjaman asing AS.

  1. The Washington Conference and Peace plan

Konferensi Washington merupakan strategi konservatif internasionalisme AS. HOW???

Konferensi Washington merupakan konferensi pertama mengenai pengurangan kompetisi senjata berkaitan dengan navigasi laut di Pasifik. Konferensi ini merupakan momen bertemunya perwakilan-perwakilan sembilan negara dengan kepentingan yang sama di Pasifik. Konferensi yang diadakan pada November 1921 dan Februari 1922 ini menyepakati perihal penetapan rasio kekuatan armada masing-masing pada skala tertentu sekaligus pengakuan terhadap teritorial lautnya. Pembatasan angkatan laut ini ditandai sebagai langkah pertama pengurangan angkatan bersenjata (disarmament).

Sementara negara-negara besar berhasil menggalakkan kampanye pengurangan angkatan bersenjata, selain dinilai pemborosan dan sia-sia—asumsi tidak ada perang lagi yang mungkin meletus ; di sisi lain pada 1933 ketika Adolf Hitler berkuasa, ia segera merancang proposal kebangkitan angkatan bersenjata Jerman.

  1. Isolationism about Diplomacy

Isolasionisme tentang diplomacy adalah tipe diplomasi yang…

MASYARAKAT DIPLOMATIK EROPA


  1. Westphalia Treaty 1648—European Diplomacy
  2. Geopolitik dan Perang-perang sebelum era Westphalia

Eropa pada abad ke 17 dibentuk dari common values dan common civilization yang berasal dari Latin Christendom[1] di mana pada Middle Ages, entitas spiritual keagamaan secara faktual bersandingan dengan otoritas yang dalam praktiknya terdifusi[2]. Pada post-medieval Europe, sistem state[3] yang demikian kemudian terfragmentasi ke dalam beberapa emperor yang feodalis, misal emperor besar Perancis dan Spanyol, sampai ke tingkat negara kota seperti Venice dan Lubeck. Di mana entitas state-state tersebut masih banyak berdasarkan pada warisan garis keturunan yang kuat, berturut dari raja ke lordship. Saat itu, hal ini menjadi faktor determinan yang kuat derajat kekuasaan dan pengaruh kerajaan terhadap kehidupan antarnegara. Garis keturunan yang kuat tentu saja menciptakan hirarki misalnya kerajaan kuat seperti Habsburg dan Henry Inggris, sedangkan yang berada di hirarki bawah, misalnya Perancis, tentu saja cenderung dalam usaha pencarian posisinya yang sejajar (the quest of position) dengan kerajaan Eropa lainnya. Intervensi Perancis dalam rangka untuk mencari posisinya di Eropa (the quest for hegemony). Penyebab perang antara lain adanya sikap menentang hegemoni yang mengancam kestabilan kekuatan di Eropa yang selama ini telah digarisi tegas oleh norma gereja (anti-hegemony). Penyebab terakhir adalah dominasi gereja yang cenderung semena-mena terhadap rakyat kalangan bawah melalui berbagai penyimpangan serta ilmu-ilmu yang semakin berkembang dan bertentangan dengan ajaran gereja. Geopolitik yang demikian menyediakan framework konstelasi otoritas domestik yang berlangsung pelan tapi pasti dan tidak paralel, namun demikian bersifat konstan. Jurisdiksi dan kekuasaan kemudian terkonsentrasi pada pemilik otoritas sentral, yakni orang-orang tertentu. Dalam pencarian terhadap posisi yang even, menghasilkan serangkaian arus informasi dan diskusi yang mana Princes Italy dan councils kemudian memanfaatkan yang demikian pertamakali dengan sebaik-baiknya. Setiap negara menjadi waspada terhadapa informasi-informasi mengenai kapabilitas dan akuntabilitas satu negara terhadap yang lain. Oleh karena itu, state kemudian berkembang menjadi entitas yang lebih maju sebagaimana Itali. Dimana kehadiran diplomat kemudian diakui, terutama dikarenakan turunan aristokrat dan nobility.

Kehadiran forum diskusi informasi yang demikian tidak serta merta memiliki istilah yang sama dengan kehadiran duta besar maupun konsulat saat ini. Walaupun pada saat itu, dapat diartikan mendekati konsulat, tentunya dengan perbedaan  melalui perkembangan kompleks yang sudah ada.

  1. The Westphalia Treaty

Perjanjian damai Westphalia merupakan gabungan dari perjanjian di Osnabruck dan Munster yang ditandatangani pada 15 Mei dan 24 Oktober 1648. Westphalia mengakhiri dua perang yakni perang tiga puluh tahun di Jerman dan delapan  puluh tahun antara Spanyol dan Netherland. Westphalia mengikutsertakan Kekaisaran Roman Suci, Ferdinand III kaisar Habsburg, kingdom of Spain, Perancis dan Swedia, republik Dutch dan sekutu di antara pangeran-pangeran Kaisar Roman Suci. Perjanjian Westphalia merupakan kongres diplomatik modern pertama. Sekaligus membuka ide perdamaian baru di Eropa tengah yang berdasarkan pada kedaulatan nation-state. Perjanjian ini kemudian menjadi bagian dari hukum internasional Roman Empire sampai 1806.

Westphalia memperkenalkan pengakuan terhadap nation-state yang kedaulatannya diakui dengan konsesus bersama dan batas-batas teritori yang jelas, tidak lagi berdasarkan pada afiliasi agama.

  1. Westphalia dan Agama

Keberadaan perjanjian perdamain Westphalia merupakan peneguhan sekularisme. Sekularisme yang dimaksud adalah gereja memiliki otoritas terbatas pada penetapan peraturan mengatur hubungan manusia dan Tuhan secara vertikal semata. Sedangkan negara kemudian diberikan hak penuh untuk mengatur hubungan manusia secara horizontal dengan menggunakan kacamata hukum. Selain itu Westphalia juga menegaskan bahwa teritori secara jelas tidak lagi ditentukan berdasarkan afiliasi agama. Misalnya,  Jerman, diberi hak penuh untuk memilih agama apa yang dikehendaki.

A New Diplomatic System

  1. A New Diplomatic area
  2. The Principe of Sovereignty, political thinking and state power
  3. The Heritage of Westphalia System: the Wien (Vienna) Congress
  4. Richelieu & Mazarin

[1] Latin bisa di Cristendom merupakan pengertian unity untuk mempersatukan eropa berdasarkan pada norma agama. Latin Cristendom analogikan sebagai Heleness dalam konteks Yunani kuno.

Latin Christendom, sering disebut sebagai  res republica christiana,  memiliki arti sebagai suatu common-wealth Christendom

18th, refers to Burkeà European Federative society also called ‘a diplomatic republic’ State system of Europe is “union of several contiguous cemented (dibalut) together by a reciprocity of interests”

[2] “terdifusi” memiliki pengertian tersebar ke dalam sejumlah peta kekuasaan milik kerajaan-kerajaan Eropa

[3] Sistem state yang terbentuk dari prinsip persatuannya Latin Cristendom dengan peta kekuasaan yang secara teritorial terpisah dengan samar, peta kekuasaan yang berubah-rubah, karena tidak ada yang secara legitimasi menentukan garis border antarkerajaan dengan jelas