NARROWING AND BROADENING SECURITY

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

devania.annesya@gmail.com

 

I

nitially, in a narrow realist, or later, neorealist approach, military security was an attribute of relations of a state, a region or a grouping of states (alliance) with other state(s), regions, groupings of states. It was also referred to as “international security”. Security was viewed as an absence of threat or a situation in which occurrence of consequences of that threat could be either prevented or state (region, alliance) could be made isolated from that.

Broadening the neorealist concept of security means inclusion of a wider range of potential threats, beginning from economic and environmental issues, and ending with human rights and migration. Deepening the agenda of security studies means moving either down to the level of individual or human security or up to the level of international or global security, with regional and societal security as possible intermediate points. While broadening can be attributed predominantly to attempts made by representatives of neorealist approach, then parallel broadening and deepening of the concept of security has been proposed by the constructivist approach associated with the works of the Copenhagen School (Buzan et al, 1998). This typology seems representative for most writings discussing reconceptualization of security, e.g. (Krause & Williams, 1996; Knudsen, 2001).

Analytical properties of security should be concentrated firstly on its adequate definitions and interpretations. Following the concepts of broadened and narrowed interpretations of security, each domain – military, political, economic, societal, environmental and informational can have its specificity (Mesjasz, 2004).

“The concept of security must change-from an exclusive stress on national security to a much greater stress on people’s security, from security through armaments to security through human development, from territorial security to food, employment and environmental security” (Human Development Report, 1993 – www.undp.org/hdro/e93over.htm).

For too long, the concept of security has been shaped by the potential for conflict between states. For too long, security has been equated with the threats to a country’s borders. For too long, nations have sought arms to protect their security. For most people today, a feeling of insecurity arises more from worries about daily life than from the dread of a cataclysmic world event. Job security, income security, health security, environmental security, security from crime-these are the emerging concerns of human security all over the world. Most people instinctively understand what security means. It means safety from the constant threats of hunger, disease, crime and repression. It also means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the pattern of our daily lives-whether in our homes, in our jobs, in our communities or in our environment (Human Development Report 1994 – www.undp.org/hdro/e94over.htm).

Reviewed from:

Mesjasz, Czeslaw. 2004. Security as an Analytical Concept. Cracow: Cracow university of Economics

Smith, Steve. “The Contested Concept of Security” in Critical Security Studies and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Pub

 

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND SECURITY IN POST-COLD WAR ERA

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

devania.annesya@gmail.com

 

F

ollowing the end of the Cold War, many analysts expected that regional security would become separate from global security (Lake and Morgan,1997), especially from the concerns of the great powers. This was because the great powers were no longer involved in an intense competition in all parts of the globe, as was the case during the Cold War. The events of 9/11 show, however, that there is a tight relationship between global security, US national security, transnational terrorism, failed states, and issues of regional conflict (such as the relations among Afghanistan, its neighbors, and trans-border ethnic groups; the Pakistan-India conflict over Kashmir; Iraq, Iran, and Gulf security; the Arab-Israeli conflict; and challenges to the stability of Arab regimes and other weak states).

The US 9/11 Commission, set up by the US Congress to investigate the events leading up to the 9/11 terror attacks, agrees. Among its conclusions: “In the twentieth century, strategists focused on the world’s great industrial heartlands. In the twenty-first, the focus is in the opposite direction, towards remote regions and failing states” (Quoted in Financial Times, July 23, 2004). Thus, regional conflicts and their resolution should be addressed not only for their intrinsic importance, but also in order to advance the cause of international security and stability.

Indeed, one major reason why questions of regional war and peace have assumed added importance in the post-Cold War era is the growing salience of regional conflicts as a result of the end of the superpower rivalry, and the potential consequences of regional conflicts for international stability (Miller and Kagan, 1997: 52). Militarily, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery to different regions may eventually pose a threat, if they do not already, not only to regional security, but to global security as well. Regional conflicts can place access to markets and resources at risk – Middle Eastern oil is a good example.

Some argue that the process of globalization has intensified with the end of the Cold War, and that this process leads to greater global uniformity which diminishes regional differences (Clark, 1997). Others, however, point out that the end of the Cold War produced increasing regional variations, especially in the area of security (Friedberg, 1993/4: 5). Indeed, the end of the Cold War has brought to the surface even greater variations among regions with respect to war and peace. In contrast to post-1945 international norms and practice (Zacher, 2001), Iraq, a state with revisionist aspirations, annexed a sovereign neighboring state, Kuwait, in summer 1990. The Iraqi action led to a major US intervention and to the First Gulf War in 1991. Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States came to see the Middle East, particularly Iraq, as a major source of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This brought about the Second Gulf War, in which the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in Spring 2003. This time the United States had a wider agenda, one which called for bringing democracy to Iraq and, coupled with other US diplomatic initiatives, to the Middle East as a whole. Another example is the Balkans where– after forty-five years of relative calm–the collapse of the USSR led to an eruption of violence which eventually brought about US-led NATO interventions in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999. Violent eruptions also took place in other areas of the collapsing Soviet empire (for example, the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan), although they did not bring out Western military interventions.

 

Reviewed from:

Miller, Benjamin. 2007. States, Nations, and Great Powers: The Sources of Regional War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

 

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND SECURITY IN COLD WAR ERA

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

devania.annesya@gmail.com

 

T

he evolution of the rise and collapse of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union from the end of World War II in 1945 to the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991 has several properties that recommend it as a test of currently contending security theories. First, the struggle for global dominance between these two superpowers and their allies, clients, and satellites generated incentives for the development of state military capabilities unprecedented in human history. Moscow and Washington constructed three mutually reinforcing military systems. Central was what Herman Kahn darkly characterized as two superpower nuclear Doomsday Machines, each capable of annihilating its rival in less than a hour–and of potentially destroying much of human life on the planet (Kahn, 1960 and Rees, 2003). Linked to these Doomsday Machines was the creation of enormous conventional and regional nuclear forces in the center of Europe, where Western democratic armies met those of the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany. These two competitors for hegemony, much like Athens and Sparta in their struggle for leadership of the Greek peninsula, also enlisted or coercively induced other states and peoples into their global alliance structures. These superpower military systems, if unleashed in a spasm, would have moved rapidly toward the Clausewitz notion of pure war. These three, interdependent military responses to their global struggle were rationalized by both states as mutually reinforcing to support their defense, deterrent, and war-fighting strategies. Dominance at each level of armed conflict was conceived as mutually contingent to produce overall strategic superiority; the synergism was widely believed by decision-makers on both sides to be indispensable to win or prevail in the global competition.

Second, the scientific knowledge, technological innovation, and economic resources mobilized to sustain these superpower systems exposed the shortcomings of classic models of security. Third, the Cold War went well beyond the material dimensions sketched in these security and welfare imperatives. It was also a struggle over legitimacy before the courts of national and world public opinion. Legitimacy as a Cold War imperative compelled the superpowers to justify their conflicting solutions to global security and welfare imperatives and their self-assumed roles as leaders of their competing coalitions. They also had to validate the principles of legitimacy that purportedly conferred on them the authority to rule other peoples and their own populations. Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader duringWorldWar II, told Milovan Djilas in 1945: “This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise” (Keylor, 2003).

Fourth, the Cold War was truly global, even more extensive in reach and impact than World Wars I and II. Engaged and ensnared were all humans, whether by choice or necessity. This was the first instance in the evolution of the species, since its emergence out of Africa over a million years ago (Diamond, 1992), that all the populations of the world had been drawn into the vortex of a global struggle. For the first time, too, the conflict put into question the very future of the human species, quite apart from the localized national, ethnic, communal interests of the peoples and states striving for ascendancy. The scope of the Cold War engaged all of the actors and principal factors identified (albeit differentially) by the security theories to be evaluated in succeeding chapters. States, the system of state relations, global markets, multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and most of the world’s populations–all were implicated by choice or necessity in the Cold War struggle. The Cold War, if viewed as a set of all conceivable interactions between and among relevant actors engaged in security relations in international relations, offers a sufficiently inclusive set of data to test the security claims of contending schools of thought.

 

Reviewed from:

Kolodziej, Edward A. 2005. Security and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

 

WAR IS THE END OF CONFLICT

 

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

Ayu Rachmania/ 070810203

Alathea Amanda Sumanti/ 070710205

 

W

ar is direct, somatic violence between states as the actors of International Relations. War occurs when states in situation of social conflicts and opposition find that the pursuit of incompatible or exclusive goals cannot be confined to non-violent modes (Evan and Newnham 1998). As a form of direct violence, war occurs in different form within social system. Gang war, range war, class war, civil or internal war are distinguishable typologies. Meanwhile others said that war is nothing but a duel on a larger scale, thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will (Clausewitz 1993).

War  is the use of force–because force is very influential in defeating the enemy and indirectly stop the opponent to threat or whatever it is–to make the enemy follow our will. War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will. That force is, phisycal force, for moral force has no existence save as expressed in the state and the law–is thus the means of war; to impose our will from on–the enemy is its object. We object to secure. That must render the enemy powerless; and that in the theory, is the true aim of warfare. Aim takes the place of the object, discarding it as something not Actually part of war Itself.

Force means power, to finished a conflict need some states that have power to involved. More greater power of state can make force more effectively. So theres condition that some big wars involved some big state to have reconcillation, therefore when force came from small state that have low political influence, force became uneffective.

Let’s understand the chronology of war—about how it is happen. First, we must know that war is begun by conflict. Conflict is a situation when interests between two or more countries collide. This conflict, mostly, will not end, before the state actors achieve their interests (national scale interests). In the political world, interests are the fundamental and essential things ever exist. Interests will always be the beginning and the ending motive/ trigger for political actors in doing their (political) actions. Interests determine whether the actors will use the non-violence actions and steps, or otherwise. That image of war pattern is the main point we’re talking about in this writing. Begins with collide of interests between two or more countries, which then continued into the state level conflict. Then, that conflict advanced to the next level, the state level war. Those continuation and advancing levels from collide of interests to conflicts and then to war. That is caused by the reason of the effort in pursuing interests. In conclusion, war is the end of the conflicts.

Influence can also be classified as war, such as embargo in economic influence, a political pressure in resolution to Iran from UN in political influences. It means that war is the end a conflict, it’s a tool to end a conflict war also judged as most effective solution, saving more time rather than negotiation and diplomacy.

Realist argued war should not necessarily be regarded as dysfunctional. War in the international system is not necessarily like disease in the biological system. The fears of war or conflicts have often be used to integrate states. In such circumstance, the search of for enemies assists in maintaining or increasing group solidarity. Violence can be used to create states. For instead in the First World War, Napoleon war was brought United Kingdom, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands and a number of German states together against France as one coalition.

 

Analysis

Neo-realists, Kenneth Waltz argue that instead of looking to “natural” causes of conflict, we need to look to “social” ones instead. Following Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Waltz argues that the organization of social relations rather than the nature of man is what determines whether or not we have war. Why? Because good men behave badly in bad social organizations, and bad men can be stopped from behaving badly if they are in good social organizations. States go to war, then, because they are in a bad social organization. And Waltz calls that bad social organization international anarchy. “International anarchy is the permissive cause of war.” So, realists and neo-realists differ on how they conceptualize international anarchy. For realists, it is just the environment in which sovereign nation-states act. For neo-realists, international anarchy describes the social relations among sovereign nation-states that causally explain why wars occur. So every state has a right to go to war if there any unresolved conflict. But if a state goes to war, who’ll be assured that the conflict will end and nothing left to fight of?

 

Reviewed from:

Evans, Graham & Newnham, Jeffrey. 1998. Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin Books

Mingst, Karen A. 2008. ‘Contending Perspective: How to Think about International relations Theoritically’ dalam Essentials of International Relation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company

Clausewite, Carl V. 1993. On War (ed & Michael haward and pete, paret), New York : Alferd A Knopf, pp 83-101, 731-737.

Art, Robert J. 2009. International Politics. Enduring Concepts & Contemporary Issues 9^th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc US

 

 

 

ANARCHY

 

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

 

Guiding questions:

-          Anarchy is a result of a system or disorder?

-          Is anarchy still exists until now?

 

A

narchy is a crucial highly contentious concept in international relation. Its literal meaning is ‘absence of government’ but it is often used as a synonym for disorder, disarray, confusion or chaos (Evan and Newnham 1998). In its formal sense, it designates the lack of a central authority and anarchy does happen in which international occur. In this sense it has neither positive nor negative conditions. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive, a general condition rather than a distinct structure. It considered to be ‘the starting point’ of thinking of international relations.

In the classical era, many of the philosophers of relevance to international relations focused on the notion of the basic characteristics of man and how those characteristics might influence the character of international society. Thomas Hobbes the English philosopher (1588-1679), in Leviathan, imagined a state of nature as a world without government authority or civil order, where men rule by passions, living with the constant uncertainty of their own security. Extrapolating to the international level, in the absence of international authority, society is in a ‘state of nature’ or what we identify as anarchy. State left in this anarchic condition act as man does in the state of nature. The solution of the dilemma is a unitary state – a Leviathan – where power is centrally and absolutely controlled.

Rousseau (1712-78) saw a different solution, he described the state of nature/ anarchy as an egocentric world, with man’s primary concern being self-preservation. Rousseau’s solution to the dilemma is to create smaller communities in which the ‘general will’ could be attained. General will can direct the forces of the state according to the purpose for which instituted, which is the common good.

 

 

Anarchy does not imply that violence is common in the international system but rather that the threat of violence is ever present. Anarchy means that the international system is one of self-help. Nevertheless, Waltz sees virtues in anarchy–principally that the high costs of organization in a hierarchic order are avoided and that states can preserve their autonomy.

Analysis

The anarchical condition exist because sovereign states as the most important player in world politics are autonomous and independent. Thus, international politics, each state presumably will behave by their own interests. And states behaviour in pursuing their own interests and their relations to other states respectively shape international politics. State are presumed to act rationally in terms of perception of the national interest but they are not entirely unconcerned with the rules and norms. That’s why conflict and cooperation can and do co-exist within the same social milieu.

Reviewed from:

Evans, Graham & Newnham, Jeffrey. 1998. Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin Books

Hobes, Thomas. 1968. Leviathan. Eng: Penguin

Jervis, Robert. 2009. Enduring concepts & Cotemporary Issues 9^th edition. Pearson Education, Inc

Mingst, Karen A. 2008. ‘Contending Perspective: How to Think about International relations Theoritically’ dalam Essentials of International Relation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company

 

 

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)

TIMOR LESTE

TIMOR LESTE

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

T imor Leste was incorporated into Indonesia in July 1976 as the province of Timor Timur (East Timor). But on 30 August 1999, in UN-supervised popular referendum, an overwhelming majority of the people of Timor-Leste voted for independence from Indonesia. On 20 May 2002, Timor-Leste was internationally recognized as an independent state. Timor comes from the Malay word for “East” the island of Timor is part of the Malay Archipelago and is the largest and easternmost of the Lesser Sunda Islands. Timor-Leste is located in southeastern Asia, northwest of Australia in the Lesser Sunda Islands at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago. Indeed, Timor Leste includes the eastern half of the island of Timor, the Oecussi (Ambeno) region on the northwest portion of the Island of Timor, and the islands of Pulau Atauro and Pulau Jaco. The total area of Timor-Leste is 14.874 sq km, insist of 14.874 sq km. The only one country that has direct land boundaries of Timor-Leste is Indonesia. Gold, petroleum, natural gas, manganese, marble, are the kind of natural resources in Timor-Leste. The development of oil and gas resources in offshore waters has greatly supplemented government revenues. This technology-intensive industry, however, has done little to create jobs for the unemployed because there are no production facilities in Timor. Gas is piped to Australia. In June 2005, the National Parliament unanimously approved the creation of a Petroleum Fund to serve as a repository for all petroleum revenues and to preserve the value of Timor-Leste’s petroleum wealth for future generations. The Fund held assets of US$5.3 billion as of October 2009. People who live in Timor-Leste named Timorese. Population rate reach 1.131.612 people in 2010 with population growth rate 2,027%. Age structure population: 0-14 years 34,7%, 15-64 years 61,9%, 65 years and over 3,4%. The ethnic groups tend to Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian), Papuan, and small Chinese minority. Their majority religion is Roman Catholic 98%, and the others are muslim 1% and Protestan 1% (2005). There are about 16 indigeneous languages : Tetum and Portugese–the official language–, Galole, Mambae, and Kemak are spoken by significant numbers of people. The conventional long form of Timor-Leste is Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste with Republic as the government type. The administrative divisions are tend to 13 administrative districts; Aileu, Ainaro, Baucau, Bobonaro (Maliana), Cova-Lima (Suai), Dili, Ermera (Gleno), Lautem (Los Palos), Liquica, Manatuto, Manufahi (Same), Oecussi (Ambeno), Viqueque. Administrative divisions have the same names as their administrative centers (exceptions have the administrative center name following in parentheses). The chief of state is President Jose Ramos-Horta (since 20 May 2007). The president plays a largely symbolic role but is able to veto legislation, dissolve parliament, and call national elections. Head of government is Prime Minister Kay Rala Xanana Gusmao since (8 August 2007). The Prime Minister formerly used the name Jose Alexandre Gusmao. And the Vice Prime Minister is Jose Luis Guterres (since 8 August 2007). The cabinet form is Council of Ministers. Timor-Leste Defense Force (Forcas de Defesa de Timor-L’este, Falintil (F-FDTL)) as the Army, Navy (Armada) in 2010. President elected by popular vote for a five-year term and eligible for a second term. The last election was held on 9 April 2007 with run-off on 8 May 2007 and the next election will be held in May 2013. President appoints leader of majority party or majority coalition as prime minister. Timor-Leste-Indonesia Boundary Committee has resolved all but some sections of border along Timor-Lestes Oecussi exclave. But maritime boundaries with Indonesia remain unresolved. Many refugees who left Timor-Leste in 2003 still reside in Indonesia and refuse repatriation. In 2007, Australia and Timor-Leste signed a 50-year development zone and revenue sharing agreement in lieu of a maritime boundary. References: Hamid, Zulkifli. 1996. Sistem Politik Pasifik Selatan. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tt.html