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

Review Sejarah Diplomasi: Jurnal 1-8


SEJARAH DIPLOMASI GLOBAL YUNANI KUNO DAN ABAD PERTENGAHAN

Jurnal I

  1. DEFINISI DIPLOMASI[GER1]

Komunikasi politik [GER2] yang terjadi di antara aktor negara secara khusus dan nonnegara secara umum, yang tertuang dalam negosiasi dalam usaha untuk memenuhi kebutuhan reguler yakni mengembangkan hubungan.

Diplomasi berkaitan dengan usaha untuk mencapai kepentingan nasional melalui komunikasi politik, sosial, budaya, hukum, pertahanan, dan keamanan dalam skala internasoinal (William, 2008)

  1. KAPAN DIPLOMASI MENJADI KAJIAN HI

Diplomasi merupakan mesinnya hubungan internasional. Diplomasi muncul setiap saat dan tempat entitas politik dengan identitas berbeda melihat dan menyaksikan kebutuhan reguler untuk mengembangkan hubungan. Sebagaimana, peradaban manusia Mesopotamia, Yunani, Roma dan peradaban pada abad pertengahan.  Akan tetapi, diplomasi menjadi kajian HI sejak perang dingin berakhir dan muncul kebutuhan reguler untuk mengembangkan hubungan internasional yang lebih damai (peaceful), melalui kooperasi, mutual agreement, mutual understanding, etc.

  1. Mesopotamia

Pengetahuan terbesar mengenai praktik awal kegiatan diplomasi berasal dari budaya peradaban Mesopotamia pada 2850 BC.

Buktinya:

  1. Diskoveri bahasa diplomatik: bahasa Akadia[GER3]
  2. Surat-menyurat dari abad ke-14 SM antara penguasa Mesir dan Hitite: message—instrumen diplomasi berupa KOMUNIKASI
  3. Yunani
    1. Ikatan diplomasi antarpolis Yunani adalah
      1. Helenes v.s. Barbarians
      2. Pada masa Macedonia, raja Philip II, instrumen diplomasinya :
        1. i.      Panhelenism, sebagai propaganda[GER4]
        2. ii.      Menggunakan eksistensi Cendekiawan2, seperti Isocrates : persuasi
    2. Karakter diplomasi
      1. Diplomasi ancaman perang (DIPLOMACY FOR WAR), coercive power (militer)
      2. Instrumen Diplomasi : propaganda dan persuasi
      3. Roma
        1. Mewarisi tradisi diplomasi Yunani, mengadopsi, dan menyesuaikannya dengan tugas administrasi kekaisaran
          1. Fungsi diplomasi: perwakilan[GER5]
          2. Diplomasi:
            1. i.      Perluasan teritori dengan ikatan-ikatan perjanjian
              1. Dikenalkan terminologi LEGATI dan LEGATIO
              2. Abad Pertengahan (feodalisasi Gereja)
                1. Peran diplomasi dilakukan oleh PAUS dengan asas AGAMA
                  1. i.      Paus sebagai MEDIATOR konflik
                  2. Penurunan DIPLOMASI, sebab
                    1. i.      peta politik terpecah-pecah, masih, kombinasi perpecahan dan kekerasan melingkupi kehidupan kawasan internasional, ini merampas ruang gerak diplomasi. Mereka lebih suka berperang dan perang terus

ANALISIS

Diplomasi tidak hanya berkontribusi terhadap lahirnya perkembangan masyarakat internasional, diplomasi juga dipengaruhi oleh masyarakat peradaban. Hal ini disebabkan oleh masyarakat berevolusi menjadi entitas-entitas politik baru, yakni polis Yunani, suku-suku di Mesopotamia, etc. Sejarah diplomasi di empat peradaban berbeda tersebut mengindikasikan perubahan besar tetapi tidak dibarengi transformasi signifikan pada praktek-praktek diplomasi. Masa abad pertengahan antara beberapa macam polities berbeda telah memperdalam dan membawa pembaharuan terhadap kontekstual praktek dan pertukaran diplomasi[GER6] . Secara paralel, terdapat kesamaan yang ingin dicapai oleh penguasa Yunani, abad pertengahan, Roma; ketiganya diplomasi dilandasi oleh nilai internal yang merefleksikan kepentingan penguasa saat itu. Keyword: civilization, political entity, ancient diplomacy.

Jurnal II

MASYARKAT DIPLOMATIK EROPA: perang tiga puluh tahun and Path to Westphalia

Analisis[GER7]

Eropa pada abad tujuh belas dibentuk dari serangkaian common values dan common civilization yakni Lation Christendom yang mana pada abad pertengahan entitas spiritual agama secara faktual bersandingan dengan otoritas yang terdifusi. Sistem negara yang demikian kemudian terfragmentasi ke dalam beberapa emperor feodalis sampai ke tingkat negara kota seperti Venice, Lubeck, Bohemia etc. Peta kekuasaan bukan suatu yang solid. Meskipun balance of power terus menerus dijaga melalui satu kekuatan hegemoni (yakni Kekaisaran Romawi Suci) tidak kemudian resisten terhadap keinginan negara lain untuk menjadi hegemoni tunggal. Peran berlatar belakang agama dan semangat menyebarkan agama menjadi seakan-akan FAKTOR (nilai) DOMINAN DIPLOMASI dipraktikkan dalam aliansi-aliansi dan diplomasi rahasia antarpersekutuan.

Westpahlia menegaskan teritori negara yang diakui dan diteguhkan kedaulatannya guna menjamin kestabilan politik.

  1. The Quest for position for Hegemony
  2. Fase-fase aliansi
  3. Diakhiri oleh Westphalia: kongres diplomatik modern pertama (diakui secara otentik)
    1. Batas-batas teritorial jelas; negara sebagai entitas politik tertinggi (otoritas tertinggi, bukan gereja)
    2. Pengakuan kedaulatan nation-states
      1. i.      Prinsip kedaulatan: bebas intervensi asing
      2. Protestan dan Katolik sejajar kedudukannya
      3. Kehadiran Italia dengan kemajuan sekulerismenya

Karakter diplomasi

  1. New diplomatic system
    1. i.      Kedekatan dan keluargaan
    2. ii.      Dialog diplomasi melalui
      1. Persuasi, ancaman, aliansi terbuka, pernikahan, dan plot konspirasi
      2. iii.      Ada permanen agen, kedutaan dan embassy
        1. Warisan Italy Renaissance

Jurnal III

DIPLOMASI ABAD 20[GER8]

  1. Westphalia
    1. Konferensi multilateral pertama
    2. Westphalia (terbukti) tidak menjamin kerangka kedamaian dan stabilitas politik yang harmonis[GER9]
    3. Westphaliaà distribusi of power= 5 Great Powers
      1. i.      Dirusak oleh perang Napoleon, diakhiri oleh perjanjian Vienna 1815
      2. ii.      Vienna 1815, setting of conduct nya praktik diplomasi diikuti oleh konteks Aux Chappele
        1. Meliputi fungsi, tugas, hak, kewajiban dan fungsi diplomat
        2. Residen minister, embassy, konsulat dan charges d’affaires
        3. World War I goals: Glory[GER10]
          1. i.      Kolonialisme dan imperialisme
          2. Karakter Diplomasi terbentuk dari nilai kolonialisme dan imperialisme kuno
          3. Karakter DIPLOMASI FOR WAR[GER11]
            1. i.      Bilateral
            2. ii.      Secret
            3. iii.      Instrumen diplomasi : Agitasi[GER12]
            4. iv.      Karakter diplomasi dalam perjanjian
              1. Rappalo (diplomatic trade relations: italia—Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia)
              2. Locarno (Status quo: diplomacy for mutualism dan frontiers : Jerman—Perancis, Chzecoslovakia, Inggris, Belgia)
              3. Briand-Kellog (diplomacy for Peace: mendekatkan Jerman dg Perancis)
              4. Diplomasi mengalami kecacatan fungsi
                1. i.      Diplomat dianggap inkompeten, tidak intelegent, rentan terhadap bencana[GER13]

ANALISIS

Diplomasi bilateral dan diplomasi rahasia menjadi karakter diplomasi saat itu. Kegiatan diplomasi tidak didedikasikan untuk menjalin hubungan baik internal aliansi. Jadi diplomasi bukan perangkat untuk meredakan ketegangan dan kecurigaan melainkan instrumen untuk memperkuat ikatan aliansi. Framework diplomasi saat itu banyak dikendalikan oleh lima kekuatan besar Eropa. Praktek diplomasi sebagian besar for war—diplomasi perang (bukan diplomasi untuk berperang, 2 terminologi berbeda). Kelemahan karakter diplomasi yang demikian terletak pada objektivitasnya yakni, tidak diperuntukkan untuk mencapai perdamaian.

Jurnal IV

DIPLOMASI SETELAH PERANG[GER14]

  1. Versailles: legitimasi kejahatan perang yang dibebankan pada Jerman
    1. Karakter diplomasi Versailles: diplomacy for Punishment and Diplomacy for Revenge
    2. Akibat
      1. i.      Self determinasi
      2. ii.      Sistem mandat
      3. iii.      14 points of Wilson
      4. Tujuan awal Versailles: menjamin stabilitas internasional (balance of power: karena bersifat kompetitif)
      5. Karakter diplomasi
        1. Preventive diplomacy 14 points of Wilson
          1. i.      Diplomacy for collective security system (Washington Conference)
          2. ii.      Diplomacy of Finance (Dawes’ Plan)
          3. iii.      Diplomacy of Trade (Germany-Russia frontiers)
          4. iv.      Diplomacy of Commerce (collective diplomacy for Oil)
          5. v.      Diplomacy of Economic
          6. vi.      Diplomacy for Peace (Geneva Pact)
          7. vii.      Diplomacy dalam asosiasi (LBB)
            1. Pola diplomasi: asosiasi dan conference
            2. Karakter utama diplomasi setelah perang:
              1. i.      Diplomacy of Compromise (preventive diplomacy) : UK US
              2. ii.      Coercive diplomacy: France Italy
              3. Issues dalam diplomasi
                1. i.      Batas teritorial (Locarno Pact)
                2. ii.      Amerika-Pasif dalam internasional (Washington conference dan Briand-Kellog Pact)à cermin konservatif internasionalisme[1]
                3. iii.      Revisionisme= pencitraan kembali dunia yang penuh damai (idealisme Wilson)
                4. iv.      Nationalities (Rappalo Pact)

ANALISIS

Ruang lingkup diplomasi pada era setelah perang terfokus pada beragam aspek kepentingan nasional terbaru (trade, commerce, economic oil). Perlahan koersif diplomasi mulai berkurang peminatnya semata-mata disebabkan keengganan untuk berperang baik dalam konteks ekonomi maupun psikologi). Diplomasi secara politik kemudian sering dilakukan dengan tujuan untuk menjaga perdamaian dan harmonisme kawasan internasional. Nilai-nilai baru diplomasi yang tertuang dalam 14 poin Wilson kemudian menjadi manifestasi kebutuhan akan suatu lembaga internasional bertindak sebagai wadah negosiasi dan diplomasi internasional. Pola diplomasi yang diperkenalkan dalam masa ini berupa diplomasi preventif, diplomasi kompromi, dan diplomasi asosiasi yang ketiganya terangkum dalam terminologi DIPLOMACY FOR PEACE. Analisis diplomasi terletak pada sudut pandang aktor, perilaku, tujuan, dan isu yang sedang diminati dalam kepentingan nasional.

Jurnal V

MENUJU PERANG 1935-1940[GER15]

  1. Pola diplomasi
    1. Preventive diplomacy gagal
      1. i.      Czechoslovakia Crisis
      2. ii.      Shino Japan Crisis

Sebab KHUSUS kegagalan LBB

  1. iii.      German invaded Poland
  2. iv.      Italy invaded Ethiopia
  3. v.      Japan invaded Manchuria (China)
  4. Karakter diplomasi
    1. Jerman, Italia, JepangàDiplomacy of War era
    2. Perkembangan diplomasi:

Kemunduran preventif diplomasi

Kejatuhan ekonomi Atlantik utara (liberalisme Amerika): Great Depression 1933, Black Tuesday

Kebangkitan sosialis Rusia (Sosial komunisme Stalin)

  1. Isu diplomasi
    1. Pelanggaran Locarno Pact, Briand-Kellog Pact, Washington Conference (by Japan)
    2. i.      Kebangkitan Nazi di Eropa tengah
    3. ii.      Kebangkitan Fasisme Italia di Afrika Utara
    4. iii.      Kebangkitan Fasisme Jepang di Asia Pasifik

Sejarah diplomasi VII 20 November

Subsequently, Cold War is typified by bloc-building, political rivalry and confrontation, military competition and lack of free economic interaction. An initial inquiry spoke the outset of Cold war emerged when USSR disagreed with the US long-term of aid for whole Europe reconstruction economically after the catastrophic WW II. It was symbolized by the Russians walked out of Paris Conference (Deighton, 4: 82).

European cold war occurred due to US ambition to end Pacific war against Japan. In his effort, US requested for USSR military aid. US exercised diplomacy for transaction in which suggested that certain regions of Europe would be given up to USSR as a war cost. Instead of diplomacy of transaction, US had utilized diplomacy of atomic which the instrument of diplomacy was primarily was the using threat of atomic bombing.

In response to US request, USSR ultimately accepted the deal, soon a large regions of Eastern Europe belong to USSR. This type of diplomacy implemented both in Yalta and Potsdam conference had enabled USSR for becoming a considerably giant power in the next future, soon called the Cold War.

Instead of that, Potsdam meeting had defined certain decision in conducting control of Germany cooperatively, there constituted minors treaties carried out by victors . Some treaties and minors had proved that there were a rising tension between East-West. Especially within the conferences: Moscow foreign ministers conference, Paris Conference, December foreign ministers conference had become instances that symbolized the end of the wartime alliance (Deighton,4: 42). This generated two blocs building. A physical evidence was Germany division both ideologically and diplomatically in to two different part, West-East and East-West. East was typically refered to USSR-Stalin, while West refered to the power of British, France, and United States and their allies.

Three categories drawn by John Lewis Gaddis in an attempt to explain the cold war situation in Europe: Orthodoxy, revisionism, and post-revisionism.

Orthodoxy accounts, saying that USSR desire to expand its borders and influence, drove US to implement diplomacy for defense within each of their policy (known as defensive policy, and containtment policy).

Revisionists, rather than putting USSR expansion in guilty, they stated a clear view points to blame US.

Post revisionists, combined those two points into one.

Later, those three approaches will be used to draw an adequate explanation to respectively focus on the roles of ideology, decision-making factors, and geostrategic factors.

IDEOLOGY

According to early Western analyst, a work of traditional perspective, viewed that the cold war was rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology in forming a totalitarian government in which it’s nearly impossible to conduct diplomacy for business, either trade or commerce. The combine of both Marxist-Leninist and Communist ideology shaped its foreign policy, saying that USSR is not ready to ‘give-and-take’ of peacetime in international politics, but USSR seemed ready to challenge the status quo what the former allies were expecting for (Deighton, 85). On the contrary, US who carried a liberated ideology, held the principles of universalism, self-determination, equality and freedom, antiMarxism-Leninism, were part of his foreign policy making as a balance or counterpart against USSR ideology.

DECISION MAKING FACTORS

Talking about decision making factors, we must point out our views within the frame of foreign policy held by each different states, either USSR or US, and the study and analysing of each of their foreign policy. FP basicly explains how one state either rationally or irrationally react to other’s state events. The underground of decision making at that time was characterized by the experience of ‘what can be learned from the past and how the images of hostile power (kekuatan berlawangan) is likely to be seen’.

The situation and condition of cold war at that time, can be viewed by analysing the relationships and foreign policy formulation between one state and other.

What can be concluded is there was a distinctive difference of foreign policy implementing by set of liberated countries (such as British, France, US and alike) with socialist countries (such as USSR, East germany, China, and Commintern members). The difference was put on their practice to maintain a tied relations: liberated countries’ diplomacy applied a term of peacetime international and institutionalized trade and alliances with a frame of liberalization (open diplomacy with low issues such as education, new economic and industrial development soon was famous as a global economic system).

While Socialist countries maintained their tied relationships with a diplomacy within their own members (closed diplomacy). Diplomacy conducted with more military supports, political power to support certain politician, and diplomacy for agricultural trade.

GEOSTRATEGIC FACTORS

Talking about geostrategic factors, we must focus our inquiry on the shifting on international power mapping. In which, British (after WW I) was previously familiar a powerful nation in Europe, but subsequently gained altered position from strong state to less powerful, either economically or militarily. Thus there was a shift of who is being percieved as a world Hegemon.

Second, just when WW II above to begin, German remained as the strongest player among all, once Germany surrender marked as the end of WW II, there was a vacuum power. This vacum condition, according to structuralist view (kenneth Waltz, a neorealist) would be likely and automatically filled by a new hegemon, a new power. However, there were two great remaining powers feasible to fill the vacum, both are the same as powerful as others. US was as responsible as USSR. However, there were many excuses which put ‘one’ (either US or USSR) was not willingly to be less than another. Neorealist agreed that a diplomacy of peacetime international maintained by both was hardly possible because both countries had a completely different views understanding peacetime international.

REFERENCE
Deighton, Anne. The Cold War in Europe, 1945-1947.

The Superpower Competition 1945-1962

Emerging Nations  as a Non-Aligned Movement

As the world war ends, it produces a large decolonization. Such large decolonization emerges as a call for growing nationalism. Nationalism has its nown importance to breed several new states embedded with opportunity to grow as powerful as other states. One of instances are Indonesia, liberated from Netherland; Egypt, liberated from France; Iran liberated from Great Britain; India, liberated from Great Britain also.

Nationalism rests inside deconolization. Sometimes nationalism has been a powerful tool to demonstrate 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 to emphasize its domination after WW II.

As col war initiates bloc division in to East-West, terminology emanated to define power competition between US-capitalist and USSR-communist. Looking pforward to escaping these two blocs, India and Indonesia begin a new ways to neutral, which later so called non-aligned movement.

Non-aligned movement is frist commenced through small regional conference where discusion then established between new emerging nations such as India and Indonesia. Having a similar history background, together Indonesia and India encourages several countries to join their union held in Bandung, in Bandung Conference.  The first time booth leaders invited medias to recor their agenda. It is an agenda to establish an isntitution of non-aligned movement that suggests a neutral bloc in order to avoid falling into conflicts of US-USSR.

As bandung congerence has resulted a non-aligned movement with its members, the actual worll wasn’t completely neutral, some nations somehow prefer either one of two blocs. However, one thing we shall note is some other countries remained neutral was Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya. While on the opposite, another countries chose communist bloc were China and Vietnam among them. Another neutral movement mainly camong from African countries, they joined Bandung conferece as a call for a new power of newly liberated and independent countries.

COERCIVE DIPLOMACY

During cold war, diplomacy has discovered new techniques. First technique, USSR and US have employed secret agency to spy each other. Spying was a crucial tool to make assessment how far another country’s superiority is. US has employed CIA against KGB of USSR. Each agency was a pecialiest and expertise on a certain area. Cia is famous of his fine competence to spy human. KGB has good competence to spy materials.

Second, there’s competition in space technology. As Soviet union launched several spacecrafts to orbit eart equipped with a very brand new development of Slayut space station with MIR, technology to peek US. Meanwhile, US developed Skylab to balance SU domnation in outer space.

In the first phase of Cold War, Soviet Union seems to have a much advantages either military of technology. It is proved that Soviet Union has more missiles and soon discovered that Soviet Union has as much as disastrous atomic bomb as US does. This makes soviet Union regarded as stronger as US. Both US and Soviet union then conduct a diplomacy concerning on atomic weapons.

A competition between US and SU becomes more intense. Each of them attempting to reach as much as another nations to commit into one of the existing bloc.

I have previously discssed about new type of diplomacy which baasically based on competition, suspiciousness, and superiority. This Cold war climate makes both blocs almost commit to suicide—hehe war, I mean, but yet war is always avoided. I wonder why, because there would be no any difference if the third world war would break, as long as another country didn’t willingly join their stupid war, I guess the only country who would likely to vanish were only SU and US. There would be another vacum of power. Don’t you think so. And its good for Malaysia to fill that position, I think Malaysia will have that big courage as he unembarassedly use to.

Another strategy of compellence has been introduced within this framework of diplomacy. strategy of compellence is intended to intimidate. At the moment conld war had just merely started, there was a concern regarding power. The concern rested on ‘power’ has been familiar with military capability. The more secure a nation may feel, the more secure its fellow country will be. On the contrary, the less secure a nation may feel, he will arm himself. The less secure a nation may feel, so is another country will be.

Another way to stop the war, is the EEC and diplomacy of peace.

Previously has been narrarted about coercive diplomacy which basically characterized by competition, suspiciousness and superiority.it directs to tension escalating and tied arm and space race between US and USSR. While bothe are busily competing each other, another region in Europe reacts Cold war in different ways.

Europe started to commence to implement a new way of soft diploamcy exist within a permanent international body, such as EEC.

Nations in Europe continent were appling soft diploamcy that tends to cover a broad scope of any possible agreement and cooperation. It is rested into the aspects of economic, maily, military-reducing arms and reducing political-tensions.

Source:

Wasserstein, Bernard. 2007. The History of Europe. London: Oxford University Press.


[1] Hubungan luar negeri Amerika yang didasarkan pada kepentingan domestik nasional sebagai prioritas utama, kekuatan militer dan ekonomi perdagangan pada prioritas selanjutnya, disertai keyakinan bahwa pola hubungan internasional banyak berpusat pada negara sebagai aktor tunggal


[GER1]

Pengertian diplomasi secara umum, dalam konteks saat ini, atau kontemporer

[GER2]

Sejak interwar, postwar, WW I and WW II: diplomasi kebanyakan melibatkan komunikasi politik pemimpin2 negara besar, sebut saja PM Inggris, Winstons Churchill; Presiden Amerika Serikat, Woodrow Wilson and FD Roosevelt; Pemimpin SU, Stalin, Lenin, Kruschev, Breznev, Gorbachev.

[GER3]

Esensi Diplomasi yang masih digunakan sampai modern diplomasi ialah

Penggunaan bahasa diplomasi internasional

Akar diplomasi kuno dari peradaban lama adalah

Penemuan bahasa Akadia sebagai bahasa komunikasi antarsuku yang bertetangga

Surat menyurat menjadi bukti adanya praktik diplomasi pada masa peradaban lama walaupun belum dilegitimasi secara konsesi bersama (namanya juga kuno)

[GER4]

Philips ‘PanHelenism’ sebagai propagandanya untuk menyatukan seluruh negara Polis melawan satu  musuh yang sama saat itu, yakni Persia

Dinilai berhasil

[GER5]

Maksudnya mengirim perwakilan ke negara2 tetangga baik untuk menakluk, mengancam, dan mematai2 mereka

[GER6]FOKUS ANALISIS

Intinya adalah, diplomasi mendapat pengaruh dan kemajuan, diskoveri besar-besaran melalui peradaban lama saat itu yang berpusat di Yunani, Mesopotamia, dan Roma; akan tetapi perkembangan diplomasi selanjutnya yakni di wilayah, Eropa, misalnya, diplomasi tidak  begitu mendapat perhatian besar: (1) Eropa saat itu masih lemah, karena peta politiknya yang pecah-pecah disebabkan serangkaian kekacauan, etc, apalagi saat itu sistem yang paling mendukung terbentuknya ruang bagi diplomasi adalah sistem gereja era abad pertengahan, dimana resolusi konflik selalu dijembatani oleh Paus, sebagai mediator diplomasi yang paling efisien.

[GER7]FOKUS ANALISIS

How treaties are set up

French as the international diplomatic language

French sent lots of his delegations to the treaty

Treaties signed in two different cities

Some important figures

Getting familiar with concept of Nation-state, and Europe condition during 17th Century

[GER8]FOKUS ANALISIS

To understand the concept of BoP

The Failure of treaty and the consequences for the future

The measurement of capability of diplomacy at that time

[GER9]

To understand the concept of BoP

Konsep BoP hadir karena situasi internasional yang anarkis dan kompetitif

Antara Perancis-Napoleon dengan empire besar di sekitarnya (kondisi geopolitik eropa) dengan negara2 empire yang saling bersaudara dekat, bertetangga erat, dll

[GER10]

Glory

Kejayaan diukur2 dari sebesar2nya wilayah teritory yang dapat ditaklukan

[GER11]

The Failure of the treaty and the consequences for the future

Growing notion that, at the END, war is the actual solution to stop the conflict

In other word, “War was perceived, at anycost, to be the best solution for anyconflict”

Thus leads to the “diploamcy for war”

Means, “Using a threat, you must agree with us/me, or I will demolish you and the entire region of yours”

Another consequences is

International assume that special envoys, embassy, and ambassador are no use

[GER12]Kekerasan, penggunaan militer

[GER13]

The measurement of capability of diplomacy at that time

[GER14]FOKUS ANtALISIS

Diplomatic writings, through treaes, pacts or conventions: (1) Verssailles: Diplomacy for revenge; (2) 14 Points of Wilson: Preventive diplomacy, a peaceful diplomacy, an age of Wilsonian built under ‘fear’ (refers Hobbessian Age), people are all basically afraid of any possibilty of future war.

Develop ‘new concepts’ of self determination etc (Consequences of Versailles, is Self determination, mandatory system, and 14 points of Wilson)

How economical situations can affect diplomacy like in US

[GER15]

The World war I had caused victorous country in Europe primarily British and France remained weak, economically and military. Both countries were heavily depends on US Economic Aid, as already mentioned there were several economic plans promoted by US: Dawes’ Plan, Marshall Plan etc (British and France had a huge debt on US). Because both country remained heavily dependent on US Aid, once US economic hit by depression in Black Tuesday 1933, their economic was pretty much far from better.

The conclusion is

Both Europe and US were weak situation.

Meanwhile, Germany by secret had it’s hidden plan to revitalize its industry rapidly, its military equipment and training by secret. Far in the east,

Japan was never visible that he had already gone a massive industry progression and development during Meiji Empire (so called Meiji Restoration), it has enabled Japan a confidence to expand its territory in order to fill its industry need as well as to realize its dream to be the only ruler throughout Asia continent and Pasific ocean.