Blog Archives
AUSTRALIAN POLITICS: NATIONAL POLITICS, FOREIGN POLICY, AND NATIONAL INTEREST
Devania Anesya/ 070810535
C hris Baker (2005) reviews Australia as a democratic constitutional monarchy and the great Victorian age of democratic reform. The federal system in which conservative and labour politics are vigorously pursued is the major issues of the day. Australia is a democratic constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth 11 as its current monarch. It is also a federation of the six states which joined together in 1901 as a result of a series of plebiscites. Each of the states has its own constitution and political structure which are broadly similar to that of the national (federal) government. Australians are famously unresponsive about the Constitution – it is tolerated, despised or mildly supported. The Constitution is not an icon of the nation, nor is it part of popular culture. In comparison with the United States the constitution is neither recited nor revered. It is not well known nor apparently well understood. Despite this, Australian democracy has one of the world’s longest continuous histories and has a tough quality which is striking to many visitors. There are two important tasks fulfilled in the Constitution. First, it creates institutions such as the Parliament which is the Queen or the Governor General, the Senate and the House of Representatives and the High Court (which is now the highest court of appeal and the interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution). The Constitution vests powers in those institutions and describes their functions and structures. Importantly, however, the institutions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are not mentioned in the Constitution, but are assumed in the conventions and practices of government. So while much of the organization of Australian government is written down some crucial institutions are not described, but rather just assumed. The Constitution contains another important feature in that the Commonwealth government is vested with certain defined powers with the remaining or residual powers resting with the six states. Some powers are shared between the states and the federal governments. Another significant feature of the Constitution is to do with the nature of the Australian federation. Thus the Australian Parliament consists of two houses: the House of Representatives, or people’s house, which is elected on nearly equal electorates and the state’s house or Senate, which consists of twelve elected senators from each of the six states plus two senators from each of the two federal territories. Each house plays a significant role in national politics. There are two major parties – the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal party of Australia as well as a number of minor parties including the National party, the Australian Democrats and the Greens. These parties function at local state and federal levels. Currently the Liberal party, together with its coalition partner the Nationals, hold power at the federal or national level. The fact that the ALP governs in each of the 6 states and 2 territories illustrates an interesting feature of Australian political life: that Australians tend to elect different political groups into power at state and federal levels. Minor parties and independents have played a growing role in Australian politics although the Australian scene is still dominated by the two major parties. Australian participation in the political processes is underscored by the fact that they go to the polls frequently due to the three levels of elected government (local, state and federal) and the relatively short terms of government (3-4 years at State and Federal levels). The complex nature of the Australian political system is one of its features, with continuous presence of political issues and obligations in the national media. Australia’s policy strategies based on a speech of Ashton Calvert (2003), Secretary Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is seeking to advance and protect Australia’s interests in the context of environment. The Government is making the most of the unprecedently close relations with the United States to build the basis for an even stronger and more vibrant partnership in the future. Also attach high priority to strengthening the inter-operability of defence forces with those of the United States, to enhancing ADF capabilities through exercises and training with US forces, and to ensuring Australian access to highly sophisticated US military technology. At the same time, Australia and the United States are engaged in the negotiation of a free trade agreement, which is one of the most significant policy initiatives. The FTA will provide improved access and greater certainty in the US market to Australian exporters, including agricultural producers. The Government is also active in looking for ways to further strengthen relations with Japan, China and the Republic of Korea. Japan remains Australia’s largest export market, and is a key interlocutor in diplomacy. July 2003, in Tokyo, Prime Ministers Howard and Koizumi signed a Trade and Economic Framework which charts a course for the future development of trade and economic ties with Japan. Australia has major security, economic and diplomatic interests in South-East Asia. This considerable stake in South-East Asia’s future stability and prosperity to defeat the scourge of terrorism. Since February 2002 Australia have put in place a network of bilateral counter-terrorism arrangements that have strengthened practical cooperation with regional partners including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Cambodia.. Recognising the increasing importance of the European Union in terms of its total political and economic weight and its ability to influence the multilateral agenda, Australia strengthening its policy dialogue with Brussels and the major national capitals on a range of international security, foreign policy, trade and economic, and regulatory issues. The Government is also making a major effort with Papua New Guinea to improve its law and order situation, governance and financial management. And more broadly in the South Pacific, Australia are actively supporting efforts to strengthen regional institutions including, where appropriate, promoting the pooling of resources, to ensure services are both deliverable and sustainable.
References: Baker, Chris. 2005. “Australia Politics” dalam Contemporary Australia. Monash University: National Centre for Australian Studies. Calvert, Ashton. 2003. The Evolving International Environment and Australia’s National Interest. Canbera: Lowy Institute (http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/speeches/department/031126_lowy_institute.html)
AUSTRALIAN POLITICS: NATIONAL POLITICS, FOREIGN POLICY, AND NATIONAL INTEREST
Devania Anesya/ 070810535
| C |
hris Baker (2005) reviews Australia as a democratic constitutional monarchy and the great Victorian age of democratic reform. The federal system in which conservative and labour politics are vigorously pursued is the major issues of the day.
Australia is a democratic constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth 11 as its current monarch. It is also a federation of the six states which joined together in 1901 as a result of a series of plebiscites. Each of the states has its own constitution and political structure which are broadly similar to that of the national (federal) government.
Australians are famously unresponsive about the Constitution – it is tolerated, despised or mildly supported. The Constitution is not an icon of the nation, nor is it part of popular culture. In comparison with the United States the constitution is neither recited nor revered. It is not well known nor apparently well understood. Despite this, Australian democracy has one of the world’s longest continuous histories and has a tough quality which is striking to many visitors.
There are two important tasks fulfilled in the Constitution. First, it creates institutions such as the Parliament which is the Queen or the Governor General, the Senate and the House of Representatives and the High Court (which is now the highest court of appeal and the interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution). The Constitution vests powers in those institutions and describes their functions and structures. Importantly, however, the institutions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are not mentioned in the Constitution, but are assumed in the conventions and practices of government. So while much of the organization of Australian government is written down some crucial institutions are not described, but rather just assumed.
The Constitution contains another important feature in that the Commonwealth government is vested with certain defined powers with the remaining or residual powers resting with the six states. Some powers are shared between the states and the federal governments. Another significant feature of the Constitution is to do with the nature of the Australian federation. Thus the Australian Parliament consists of two houses: the House of Representatives, or people’s house, which is elected on nearly equal electorates and the state’s house or Senate, which consists of twelve elected senators from each of the six states plus two senators from each of the two federal territories. Each house plays a significant role in national politics.
There are two major parties – the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal party of Australia as well as a number of minor parties including the National party, the Australian Democrats and the Greens. These parties function at local state and federal levels. Currently the Liberal party, together with its coalition partner the Nationals, hold power at the federal or national level. The fact that the ALP governs in each of the 6 states and 2 territories illustrates an interesting feature of Australian political life: that Australians tend to elect different political groups into power at state and federal levels. Minor parties and independents have played a growing role in Australian politics although the Australian scene is still dominated by the two major parties.
Australian participation in the political processes is underscored by the fact that they go to the polls frequently due to the three levels of elected government (local, state and federal) and the relatively short terms of government (3-4 years at State and Federal levels). The complex nature of the Australian political system is one of its features, with continuous presence of political issues and obligations in the national media.
Australia’s policy strategies based on a speech of Ashton Calvert (2003), Secretary Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is seeking to advance and protect Australia’s interests in the context of environment. The Government is making the most of the unprecedently close relations with the United States to build the basis for an even stronger and more vibrant partnership in the future. Also attach high priority to strengthening the inter-operability of defence forces with those of the United States, to enhancing ADF capabilities through exercises and training with US forces, and to ensuring Australian access to highly sophisticated US military technology. At the same time, Australia and the United States are engaged in the negotiation of a free trade agreement, which is one of the most significant policy initiatives.
The FTA will provide improved access and greater certainty in the US market to Australian exporters, including agricultural producers. The Government is also active in looking for ways to further strengthen relations with Japan, China and the Republic of Korea. Japan remains Australia’s largest export market, and is a key interlocutor in diplomacy. July 2003, in Tokyo, Prime Ministers Howard and Koizumi signed a Trade and Economic Framework which charts a course for the future development of trade and economic ties with Japan.
Australia has major security, economic and diplomatic interests in South-East Asia. This considerable stake in South-East Asia’s future stability and prosperity to defeat the scourge of terrorism. Since February 2002 Australia have put in place a network of bilateral counter-terrorism arrangements that have strengthened practical cooperation with regional partners including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Cambodia..
Recognising the increasing importance of the European Union in terms of its total political and economic weight and its ability to influence the multilateral agenda, Australia strengthening its policy dialogue with Brussels and the major national capitals on a range of international security, foreign policy, trade and economic, and regulatory issues.
The Government is also making a major effort with Papua New Guinea to improve its law and order situation, governance and financial management. And more broadly in the South Pacific, Australia are actively supporting efforts to strengthen regional institutions including, where appropriate, promoting the pooling of resources, to ensure services are both deliverable and sustainable.
References:
Baker, Chris. 2005. “Australia Politics” dalam Contemporary Australia. Monash University: National Centre for Australian Studies.
Calvert, Ashton. 2003. The Evolving International Environment and Australia’s National Interest. Canbera: Lowy Institute (http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/speeches/department/031126_lowy_institute.html)
Diplomasi and Foreign policy
DIPLOMASI DAN KEBIAKAN LUAR NEGERI
Pengertian diplomasi
Secara harfiah diplomasi berasal dari kata “diploma” (Yunani: sebuah kertas yang dilipat dua) yang didesain sebagai dokumen resmi Negara/ dokumen sejarah, sebuah sertifikat perundingan, kewenangan, dan semacamnya. Berdasarkan Bester’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (1996) diplomasi adalah:
- Hubungan relasi antar bangsa, dalam membuat keputusan,
- Keahlian dalam melakukannya,
- Keahlian dealing with people.
Berikut adalah definisi diplomasi menurut beberapa ahli:
- Ellis Briggs: diplomasi adalah sebuah kegiatan urusan official dengan cara mengirim seseorang untuk mewakili pemerintahan. Tujuan diplomasi adalah untuk menciptakan persetujuan dalam kacamata kebijakan (1968, p.202)
- Geoffrey McDermott: diplomasi adalah pertimbangan dalam manajemen hubungan internasional. Masing-masing Negara, seberapapun kaliber dan ukurannya, selalu ingin memelihara/ mengembangkan posisinya dalam kancah internasional. Begitulah adanya, kendati faktanya, akan lebih baik jika lebih sedikit negara nationally minded di dunia ini. (1973, p.39)
- Honore de Balzac: ilmu pengetahuan bagi mereka yang tidak berkuasa… suatu ilmu pengetahuan menyenangkan yang selalu demi memenuhi dirinya sendiri; suatu ilmu pengetahuan yang mengijinkan praktisinya untuk tidak mengatakan apapun dan berlindung di belakang anggukan kepala misterius; suatu ilmu pengetahuan yang mengatakan bahwa eksponen yang paling berhasil, pada akhirnya, adalah mereka yang mampu berenang bersama kepalanya di atas arus kejadian-kejadian yang pura-pura ia lakukan. (p.37)
DIPLOMASI DAN PERKEMBANGANNYA
Catatan historis pertama megenai pertukaran duta pemerintahan terorganisir terjadi di millennium ketiga sebelum masehi, yakni peradaban tulisan berbentuk paku Mesopotamia.
Diplomasi pernah dimarginalkan dalam kajian HI. Namun anehnya saat itu diplomasi mendapat perhatian dari sebagian kecil ilmuwan politis yang mengkhususkannya di dalam kajian ilmu hubungan internasional. Tentu saja, itu karena diplomasi bersifat “sangat menentang ke theory”. Seperti yang kita ketahui, sejarah diplomatik menimbun sangat banyak informasi tentang peristiwa dari jaman dahulu hingga ke depannya dan sejarawan diplomatik pun gagal menempa mata rantai kuat dengan teori IR. Oleh karena itu, kendati diplomasi ” ada” di dalam teori internasional, ia jarang diteliti atau secara ekstensif diselidiki. Kekayaan konseptual literatur mengenai diplomasi sungguh terbatas dan sangat “terceraikan” dari perkembangan teori politik. Contohnya ketika masa Perang Dingin terjadi, ancaman kekuatan lebih diunggulkan ketimbang diplomasi.
Namun beberapa tahun terakhir ini, studi diplomasi akademis nampaknya telah terevitalisasi. Contohnya Institut terkemuka Studi Diplomasi Universitas Georgetown yang menerbitkan The Diplomacy Record per tahunnya dan Pusat Studi Diplomasi di Universitas Leicester, yang menerbitkan Discussion Papers bulanan dan buku berseri, Studies in Diplomacy. Sebagai tambahan, International Studies Association ( ISA) dan British International Studies Association (BISA) mendirikan bagian studi diplomatik di tahun 1990an.
ESENSI DIPLOMASI
Sebagian besar ilmuwan politis membantah bahwa diplomasi ‘mengekspresikan sebuah human condition yang mendahului dan melebihi pengalaman selama tinggal dalam kedaulatan tersebut, Negara wilayah dalam beberapa ratus tahun yang lalu’ (Sharp, 1999: 51). Daripada membatasi konsep pada praktek dan aktor yang spesifik, mereka memahami diplomasi dalam kaitannya dengan konsep umum, seperti representation dan communication. Diplomasi juga dapat dipahami sebagai ‘suatu proses komunikasi yang diatur’ ( Constantinou, 1996: 25) atau ‘ sistem komunikasi masyarakat internasional’ (James, 1980: 942).
Disamping itu diplomasi berisi aspek-aspek penting, seperti: (1) sebuah akun sejarah dan prasejarah diplomasi, (2) mengenai fungsi, gaya, dan teknik berdiplomasi, (3) informasi mengenai kerangka syah diplomasi, (4) sebuah diskusi tentang permasalahan dan pengembangan kontemporer.
KEBIJAKAN LUAR NEGERI DAN KAITANNYA DENGAN DIPLOMASI
Penting untuk membedakan antara diplomasi dan Kebijakan luar negeri. Diplomasi mengacu pada pelaksanakan hubungan dengan seseorang, sedangkan FP mengacu pada ‘perihal’ tersebut, sebuah strategi/ rencana yang dikembangkan oleh decision maker untuk berhubungan dengan Negara lain , bertujuan untuk mencapai sebuah tujuan spesifik yang disebut dengan national interest. Harper dan Row (1973) berpendapat bahwa kebijakan luar negeri adalah sebagai poin yang memperlancar kebangkitan dalam sistem internasional ke dalam arena domestic dan di mana politik domestic bertransformasi ke dalam international behavior. Itulah mengapa kebijakan luar negeri menjadi kajian penting dalam ilmu hubungan internasional.
KESIMPULAN
Pada dasarnya diplomasi adalah kajian hubungan internasional dengan dasar teoritikal yang lemah. Namun beberapa tahun terakhir ini, studi diplomasi akademis nampaknya telah terevitalisasi. Hal ini dikarenakan diplomasi menekankan pada negosiasi. Berdasarkan kamus Oxford, diplomasi didefinisikan sebagai ‘kegiatan hubungan internasional dalam bentuk negosiasi’. Adam Watson (1982: 33) juga tak jauh beda dari itu, ia berpendapat diplomasi sebagai ‘negosiasi antara perangkat politik yang keduanya indepen’.
Sementara itu FP merupakan sebuah strategi/ rencana yang dikembangkan oleh decision maker untuk berhubungan dengan Negara lain.
PENDAPAT
Secara ringkas saya berpendapat bahwa sementara diplomasi adalah taktik, FP adalah strategi. Keduanya saling berhubungan satu sama lain. Diplomasi akan turut berubah jika terjadi perubahan lingkungan yang memicu perubahan dalam FP. Saya juga sependapat dengan McDermott bahwa inti sebenarnya dari diplomasi adalah untuk mengintervensi Negara lain melalui persetujuan sebab tujuan utama dari diplomasi tak lain adalah untuk memenuhi national interest. Tak ada satu Negara pun di dunia ini yang menginginkan kedudukan negaranya dalam kancah internasional jauh lebih rendah ketimbang lainnya.
Interest Group: Influencing in Foreign Policy
INTEREST GROUP: INFLUENCING IN FOREIGN POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The definition of interest group in US history narates as the organizationas that seek to influence the public policy in which many variety of organizations can be assumed as interest groups. Interest groups then defined as groups range from large, mass-membership organizations such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), to labor unios, such as the United Auto Workers (UAW), to large corporations such as Exxon Mobile. Interest group activity is something in which they they engage in order to protect their primary activities, such as making and selling a product or service. Another distinction that can be made between interest groups that exist to promote a particular cause such as the National Rifle Association in which exists primarily to oppose gun control and interest groups such as corporations that may become involved in a wide range of pulic policies such as taxation, environmental protection, and trade policy that affects their interests.
Interest groups have been long thought to be central to American politics. The writers of Federalist Papers especially in Numbers 10 and 51 cast their arguments in favor of the Constitution in large part on how it would both facilitate and restrain interest-group activity. In the thought of American History, different types of interest groups have been brought to prominent as the products of socioeconomic changer, social movements, and government policies. For instance, the recurring economic crises of American agriculture from the alte nieteenth century onward prompted the creation of a succession of agricultural interest group: the Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Farmer’s Union. The major social movements of the late twentieth century also left an impac in which civil rights groups came to prominence in the 1960’s, folowed by groups representing women (especially the National Organization for Women—NOW). Business interest groups, seeking to counter the influence of unions and public-interest groups, set the pace in terms of fund-raising and organization in the 1980’s and 1990s. While some of these interest groups have since seen their influence decline, all retain an important presence in American politics today. The interest-group landscape thus reflects a complex geology in which, different interest groups are created by a variety forces.
Interest groups have used a wide array of tactics over the yearrs, ranging from campaigning in elections to bribery. The most obvious tactics used today are lobbying and making campaign contribution. All major interest group such as the American Federation of Labor-Congress Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Business Roundtable, and individual companies such as Exxon Mobile or DuPont employ professionals whose job is to persuade legislators and executive-branch officials of the wisdom and justice of the group’s case. Most studies of lobbyist have condluded that the most effective lobbyist are those who have established with whom they deal[1].
In spite of the the ubiquity, a debate has raged throughout American history about whether interest groups are an aird or a barrier to the practice of democracy. Defenders of interest groups aregued that they are both a central aspect of democratic politics and an aid to good government. The Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to petition theri government and interest groups exists to do just that. The clash of interest between interest groups aids policymakers by prviding more and better information for making policy decisions. However, interest groups also have dominates a policy area to the disadvantage of the public as a whole. Second, it is feared that the interest group system distorts democary because the resources required to be effective attract members and money; the large corporations that they confront can easily command the resources they need to staf a Washington office for their lobbyist, to creat a PAC, or to make soft money contribution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Most lobbyists feel that they are more likely to gain a hearing for their arguments if their interest group makes campaign contributions to the politicians with whom they deal. Since 1974, campaign contributions made directly to candidates (known as hard money) must be made through Political Action Committee (PACs) that are linked to the interest group but legally separated from its general funds. Contributions are limited to a maximum of $5,000 for each election (primary and general) and must be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC.) It was hoped that the combination of limiting contributions considerably and publicizing them would prevent abuses. In the late twentieth century, however, interest groups were allowed to make unlimited contributions through parties to candidates. This “soft money” could come directly from the interest group’s general funds and need not have been raised explicitly for political purposes.
