Entries by iis.fisipol

Beyond The Great Wall #14 | Dinamika Geoekonomi Belt and Road Initiative

/in /by

Jumat (23/04) lalu, Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) menyelenggarakan Forum Diskusi Beyond The Great Wall (BTGW) edisi ke-14. Dalam kesempatan tersebut, IIS UGM mengundang Probo Darono Yakti, Dosen Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jawa Timur, yang juga sedang menjalani Studi Doktoral dengan disertasi mengenai kebijakan luar negeri Tiongkok. Probo didampingi oleh Brigitta Kalina, staf divisi diseminasi IIS UGM yang berperan sebagai moderator.

Dalam kesempatan tersebut, Probo membawakan materinya yang berjudul “Belt and Road Initative RRT : Kemunculan dan Perluasan Orde Developmentalisme di Indo-Pasifik Tandingan Liberalisme AS”. Lewat materinya tersebut, Probo menganalisa peluang berkembangnya BRI sebagai wujud Developmentalisme RRT di kawasan Indo-Asia-Pasifik, dan membandingkannya dengan liberalisme a la Amerika Serikat, yang mengalami kemerosotan di era Presiden Donald Trump.

[RECAP] Cangkir Teh #2: “The Transformation of Indonesia’s South-South Cooperation: From Solidarity to Interests?”

/in , , /by

On Friday March 19th, the Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM), held the second edition of the Cangkir Teh discussion virtually using Zoom Meetings. In this occasion, IIS UGM invited Rizky Alif Alvian, a professor at the International Relations Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada, as a speaker in this discussion–titled “The Transformation of Indonesia’s South-South Cooperation: From Solidarity to Interests?”. Alongside Rizky, IIS UGM also invited Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika, research staff at IIS UGM as the moderator of this discussion.

In this discussion, Rizky explained an article that he wrote with Dr. Poppy S. Winanti, titled “Indonesia’s South-South cooperation: when normative and material interests converged”. The article was published in the International Relations of the Asia Pacific journal in the September 2019 edition. Through this discussion, Rizky invites the participants to discuss the transformation dynamics of Indonesia’s South-South cooperation and the combination between normative and material interests that are involved–influenced by the political dynamic Indonesia experience.

Rizky opened the session by analyzing the definition of the “South” that is often used in the development discourse, where he sees that the majority of the Global South states experience the same fate as postcolonial countries. This can be seen from the actors who are involved in the Bandung Conference. These Global South states then form a cooperation initiative based on two foundations. First, normative interests, based on the shared sense of fate and the will to no longer be an object of the Global North, and material interests, based on each country’s political and economic interests, including Indonesia.

However, over time, South-South cooperation experienced a transformation, including those done by Indonesia. Consequently, the motivation of the cooperation that started with a normative foundation shifted to a convergence between normative and material interests. In this contemporary era, Rizky argues that Indonesia’s foundation of South-South cooperation is a convergence between normative and material goods.

Furthermore, Rizky divided Indonesia’s South-South cooperation into three different phases. During the Old Order, Indonesia’s South-South cooperation was fully based on normative interests grounded on solidarity to make a revolutionary Global South cooperation. In the second phase, under the New Order, Indonesia started to prioritize material goods by prioritizing political and economic gains as the main backdrop in designing South-South cooperation. The last phase, or the third phase, is marked by the convergence between normative and material interests–started during the Reform era and is continually preserved until now.

After the presentation, Rizky invited the participants to discuss together the South-South cooperation Indonesia has done. Moderated by Indrawan, the discussion session went well and was filled with the participants’ enthusiasm.

Writer : Raditya Bomantara

Editor : Mariola Yansverio

[RECAP] Cangkir Teh #2 : “Transformasi Kerjasama Selatan-Selatan Indonesia: Dari Solidaritas ke Kepentingan?”

/in , /by

Jumat (19/03) Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) menyelenggarakan diskusi Cangkir Teh edisi kedua secara virtual melalui platform Zoom Meetings. Pada kesempatan kali ini, IIS UGM mengundang Rizky Alif Alfian, Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada untuk menjadi narasumber dalam diskusi yang bertajuk “Transformasi Kerjasama Selatan-Selatan Indonesia: Dari Solidaritas ke Kepentingan?”. Untuk mendampingi Rizky, IIS UGM mengundang Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika, Staf Peneliti IIS UGM sebagai moderator diskusi.

Pada kesempatan tersebut, Rizky membahas mengenai artikel yang ditulisnya bersama dengan Dr. Poppy S. Winanti, dan berjudul “Indonesia’s South–South cooperation: when normative and material interests converged“. Artikel tersebut telah terbit pada jurnal International Relations of the Asia-Pacific edisi  September 2019. Lewat diskusi tersebut, Rizky mengajak para partisipan Cangkir Teh untuk mendiskusikan bersama mengenai dinamika transformasi Kerjasama Selatan-Selatan yang dilakukan oleh Indonesia, dan kombinasi kepentingan normatif dan material yang terjadi seiring dengan berubahnya situasi politik di Indonesia.

Rizky membuka sesi dengan menjelaskan mengenai definisi “Selatan” yang digunakan dalam pembangunan argumen, dimana ia melihat bahwa mayoritas negara-negara selatan memiliki kesamaan nasib sebagai negara-negara post-colonialism. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari partisipan yang terlibat didalam konferensi Bandung.  Selanjutnya, negara-negara selatan membangun kerja sama dengan dilandasi dua kepentingan yang berbeda, yaitu normatif, yang didasari oleh persamaan nasib dan keinginan untuk tidak lagi menjadi obyek dari negara – negara utara, dan material, yang didasaro oleh kepentingan politik dan ekonomi masing-masing negara, termasuk Indonesia.

Namun, seiring dengan berjalannya waktu, terjadi transformasi kerja sama selatan-selatan yang dilakukan oleh Indonesia, dimana motivasi Kerjasama yang awalnya didasari oleh kepentingan  normatif mengalami transformasi menjadi konvergensi kepentingan normatif dan material. Kepentingan normatif juga mengalami transformasi dari sistem internasional menjadi kompromi. Pada era kontemporer ini, Rizky berargumen bahwa Indonesia melandasi kerja sama selatan-selatannya dengan konvergensi antara kepentingan normatif dan material.

Selanjutnya, Rizky juga membagi transformasi kerja sama selatan – selatan yang dilakukan oleh Indonesia kedalam 3 fase berbeda. Pada fase pertama yang berlangsung pada masa Orde Lama, Kerjasama selatan-selatan Indonesia sepenuhnya didasari oleh kepentingan normatif dan berlandaskan solidaritas untuk membangun kerjasama antar negara selatan yang revolusioner. Pada fase kedua, Indonesia mulai beralih untuk mengutamakan kepentingan material, dibawah kepemimpinan Orde Baru, yang mementingkan kepentingan politik dan ekonomi dalam merancang kerja sama selatan-selatan. Fase terakhir atau fase ketiga ditandai dengan terjadinya konvergensi diantara kepentingan normatif dan material, dan dimulai pada era reformasi, dan masih terus dipertahankan sampai saat ini.

Seusai pemaparan materi, Rizky mengajak para peserta untuk mendiskusikan bersama tentang kerja sama selatan-selatan yang telah dilakukan oleh Indonesia. Dengan dimoderatori Indrawan, sesi diskusi berjalan dengan cukup kondusif dan dipenuhi dengan antusiasme dari para peserta yang terlibat

Penulis : Raditya Bomantara

Penyunting : Mariola Yansverio

[RECAP] Beyond the Great Wall #13: China and Maritime Sovereignty

/in , , /by

On Friday (26/02), Institute of International Studies UGM organized the 13th edition of Beyond the Great Wall Forum, titled “China and  Maritime Sovereignty”. The forum was held online via Zoom Meeting platform. In this event, BTGW invited Aristyo Rizka Darmawan, a professor and researcher for the Center for Sustainable Ocean Policy in the Faculty of Law of Universitas Indonesia. Aristyo’s presentation was titled “China’s New Coast Guard Law: Illegal and Escalatory”. This forum was moderated by Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, a professor in the International Relations Department UGM.

Last February, the Chinese government has officially authorized China’s New Coast Guard Law. This legislation allows China’s Coast Guard (CCG) to mobilize all capabilities (including the use of force) against parties that are deemed to be interfering with China’s maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction. According to Aristyo’s presentation, this new legislation violates international law and would in fact, escalate tensions among bordering states. At the beginning of his presentation, Aristyo explained that the CCG has a long history in its development. Since 2013, the CCG Bureau was formed to unify China’s legal maritime entities, titled the “Five Dragons, ” including China Marine Surveillance, Chinese Coast Guard, Chinese Maritime Patrol, China Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, and General Administration of Customs. This effort is part of China’s grand ambition to sustain and protect its territorial integration, especially regarding China’s Nine-Dash Line claim that has provoked conflict with East Asian and Southeast Asian states.

Highlighting this issue from the jurisdiction and international law aspect, Aristyo stated that the CCG law is essentially illegal. The CCG law is highly problematic from the jurisdiction side because it would violate other states’ sovereignty, which is legally guaranteed under international law. In addition to that, China’s Nine-Dash line claim would make any territory under the claim illegal. The new law that would allow the CCG’s use of force against parties deemed to interfere in China’s jurisdiction and maritime sovereignty violates international law that forbids any activity in a disputed territory. Not only that, the new CCG law explicitly violates several international laws and treaties, namely the UNCLOS and the UN Charter. Through its new CCG law, China has violated international instruments that forbid states to employ their military capability in resolving maritime disputes.

Moreover, Aristyo explained the new CCG law’s escalation impact; it would increase tensions between China and its bordering countries. China’s Nine-Dash Line claim has pushed itself into being stuck in several maritime disputes with East Asian and Southeast Asian countries. So far, China shows no hesitation in employing coercive means and threatening these countries, even though there is an ongoing effort to negotiate a Code of Conduct (CoC). The new CCG bill’s authorisation will have sour implications towards the CoC negotiation process, sending a message that Beijing does not take the negotiations seriously. Tensions will escalate not only with states who are directly involved in this dispute, but also with the US—noting that the US also plays a role in this maritime territorial dispute.

At the end of his presentation, Aristyo stated that several international actors could take several actions in regards to China passing the new CCG Law. According to him, other claimant countries or countries concerned with the South China Sea dispute could have shown a more robust response. In this case, the response can be in the form of condemnation or pressure against China to quickly evoke or amend the law. In terms of Indonesia, Aristyo claimed that the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had invited the Chinese Ambassador for talks, but the invitation was left unanswered. Aristyo suggested that it is time for Indonesia to send a diplomatic note to Beijing to show a concrete effort of Indonesia’s commitment to ensuring peace in the Southeast Asian region. Nevertheless, he also stresses that Indonesia must be prepared for all possibilities, especially because Indonesian maritime resources are far behind China’s.

Writer : Brigitta Kalina

Editor : Mariola Yansverio

[RECAP] Beyond the Great Wall #13: Cina dan Kedaulatan Maritim

/in , /by

Jumat (26/02), Institute of International Studies UGM menyelenggarakan forum “Beyond the Great Wall” edisi ke-13 yang bertajuk “Cina dan Kedaulatan Maritim”. Forum diselanggarakan secara daring melalui media Zoom Meetings. Pada forum kali ini, BTGW menghadirkan Aristyo Rizka Darmawan, dosen dan peneliti Center for Sustainable Ocean Policy, Fakultas Hukum Indonesia. Aristyo membawakan materi dengan judul “China’s New Coast Guard Law: Illegal and Escalatory.” Tidak hanya itu, BTGW #13 juga menghadirkan Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, Dosen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional UGM, sebagai moderator.

Pada Februari lalu, Cina telah mengesahkan China’s New Coast Guard Law, sebuah undang-undang yang mengizinkan China’s Coast Guard (CCG) untuk mengerahkan segala kemampuan (termasuk penggunaan senjata) kepada pihak yang dianggap mengganggu kedaulatan dan yurisdiksi kemaritiman Cina. Berangkat dari hal tersebut, melalui materi yang disampaikannya, Aristyo menyatakan bahwa undang-undang ini sejatinya melanggar hukum internasional, dan justru akan mengekskalasi konflik diantara negara-negara yang berbatasan laut dengan Cina. Di awal pemaparannya, Aristyo menjelaskan bahwa CCG memiliki sejarah panjang dalam perkembangannya. Sejak tahun 2013, CCG Bureau dibentuk untuk menyatukan badan-badan hukum maritim yang dibentuk oleh Cina dengan sebutan “Five Dragons” yang meliputi China Marine Surveillance, Chinese Coast Guard, Chinese Maritime Patrol, China Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, dan General Administration of Customs. Upaya ini tentunya dilakukan sebagai bagian dari ambisi Cina untuk mempertahakan integrasi wilayahnya, utamanya terkait dengan klaim Nine-Dash Line yang telah memicu terjadinya konflik dengan negara-negara di Asia Timur maupun Asia Tenggara.

Aristyo menyatakan bahwa hukum CCG sejatinya ilegal. Dari yurisdiksinya, hukum CCG sangat problematis karena pengesahan hukum CCG berarti akan melanggar kedaulatan negara lain, yang memiliki klaim wilayah yang legal di mata hukum intenasional. Selain itu, klaim Nine-Dash Line Cina menjadikan wilayah yang terletak di bawah klaim tersebut menjadi ilegal. Hukum baru yang membolehkan CCG untuk mengerahkan senjata dan melakukan berbagai upaya kepada pihak yang dianggap melanggar kedaulatan dan yurisdiksi Cina secara jelas telah melanggar ketentuan hukum internasional yang melarang berbagai bentuk kegiatan di wilayah yang masih disengketakan. Tidak hanya itu, hukum baru CCG juga secara jelas melanggar berbagai hukum dan perjanjian internasional seperti UNCLOS dan Piagam PBB. Instrumen-instrumen tersebut melarang berbagai negara untuk menggunakan kapasitas militernya dalam menyelesaikan sengketa laut menjadi poin yang jelas-jelas dilanggar oleh Cina melalui hukum baru CCG.

Selanjutnya, Aristyo juga menjelaskan bahwa pada dasarnya hukum baru CCG justru akan mengeskalasi tensi antara Cina dan negara-negara yang berbatasan laut dengannya. Selama ini, klaim Nine-Dash Line Cina telah membuatnya tersangkut dalam berbagai sengketa maritim dengan negara-negara di Asia Tenggara dan Asia Timur. Cina bahkan tidak segan-segan menggunakan upaya-upaya yang koersif dan mengancam negara-negara tersebut kendati upaya negosiasi Code of Conduct (CoC) sedang berlangsung. Pengesahan hukum baru CCG justru akan memperburuk proses negosiasi CoC yang sedang diupayakan dan menunjukkan bahwa Beijing tidak serius dalam upaya negosiasi CoC. Tidak hanya itu, pengesahan hukum baru CCG juga akan meningkatkan tensi yang telah terjadi antara Cina dan Amerika Serikat (AS), mengingat hadirnya AS di wilayah yang berkonflik dengan Cina.

Di ujung presentasinya, Aristyo menyatakan bahwa ada beberapa hal yang mestinya mampu dilakukan oleh berbagai aktor internasional terkait disahkannya hukum baru CCG. Menurutnya, negara-negara yang mengklaim dan berkepentingan dalam isu Laut Cina Selatan seharusnya mampu merespon dengan lebih kuat. Respon ini dapat berupa kecaman dan tekanan kepada Cina untuk segera merubah ataupun meniadakan undang-undang ini. Selain itu, berbicara secara spesifik mengenai Indonesia, Aristyo mengklaim bahwa sebenarnya pemerintah Indonesia melalui Kementerian Luar Negeri telah melakukan panggilan kepada Duta Besar Cina di Indonesia. Namun, tidak mendapatkan jawaban. Baginya, sudah saatnya bagi Indonesia untuk mengirimkan nota diplomatik kepada Beijing sebagai bentuk nyata komitmen Indonesia untuk menjaga perdamaian di wilayah Asia Tenggara. Walaupun begitu, ia juga menggarisbawahi bahwa Indonesia harus bersiap atas segala kemungkinan yang terjadi mengingat sumber daya dan kapabilitas maritim Indonesia masih sangat jauh dibawah Cina.

Penulis : Brigitta Kalina

Editor : Mariola Yansverio

[RECAP] Cangkir Teh #1 : “Membela Demokrasi di Tengah Pandemi — Refleksi Perlawanan Nirkekerasan di Indonesia dan Dunia 2020”

/in /by

Edisi perdana Cangkir Teh pada tahun 2021 telah diselenggarakan pada hari Senin 22 Februari 2021, dan merupakan hasil kerjsama Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) dengan Tim Damai Pangkal Damai (DPD). Agenda utama pertemuan Cangkir Teh kali ini, adalah untuk mendiskusikan dan membedah laporan “Membela Demokrasi di Tengah Pandemi — Refleksi Perlawanan Nirkekerasan di Indonesia dan Dunia 2020”. Pada edisi kali ini, IIS UGM mengundang 3 pembicara, yaitu Diah Kusumaningrum, Dosen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada dan peneliti IIS UGM, Ihsan Ali Fauzi, perwakilan dari Pusat Studi Agama dan Demokrasi (PUSAD) Paramadina, dan Puri Kencana Putri, perwakilan Accenture Malaysia dan mantan wartawan KontraS. Sesi ini dimoderatori oleh Cut Intan Aulianisa Isma, Manajer IIS UGM

Diah membuka sesi dengan membahas mengenai latar belakang dari Tim Damai Pangkal Damai, yang merupakan proyek database aksi nirkekerasan di Indonesia pada era reformasi. Bekerjasama dengan mahasiswa-mahasiswa yang berdedikasi, Tim DPD telah berhasil mencatat 14.023 aksi nirkekerasan di Indonesia pada era reformasi.  Database tersebut diharapkan dapat membantu pihak-pihak yang membutuhkan untuk menyelenggarakan aksi-aksi damai, mulai dari mahasiswa, masyarakat adat, hingga jurnalis yang dapat mempelajari jurnalisme damai. Diah juga berharap, bahwa pemerintah dan aparat juga dapat mempelajari prinsip-prinsip nirkekerasan, dan menerapkan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari di Indonesia, dan memperkuat struktur demokrasi yang telah ada. Tim DPD percaya, bahwa kultur yang paling penting dalam demokrasi adalah kontestasi dengan menerapkan prinsip-prinsip nirkekerasan.

Sesi dilanjutkan dengan pembahasan mengenai isi dari laporan “Membela Demokrasi di Tengah Pandemi — Refleksi Perlawanan Nirkekerasan di Indonesia dan Dunia 2020” diharapkan dapat menjadi dokumen yang dapat digunakan untuk menjadi refleksi dari aksi-aksi nirkekerasan yang telah diterapkan di Indonesia pada era Reformasi, dan diluncurkan bertepatan dengan World Day of Social Justice. Laporan ini dibagi menjadi beberapa bagian, dan dimulai dengan executive summary. Diah memaparkan bahwa tahun 2020 juga ditandai oleh mulai digunakannya secara meluas aksi-aksi nirkekerasan pada berbagai macam gerakan diseluruh dunia, mulai dari Indonesia, Amerika, Tunisia, Hong Kong, dan lain lain, dan dapat dikategorikan kedalam 198 metode aksi nirkekerasan ala Gene Sharp. Pandemi tidak membuat aksi-aksi nirkekerasan diseluruh dunia berakhir, dan justru membuat aksi nirkekerasan jauh lebih penting dibandingkan sebelumnya.

Pandemi membuat aksi nirkekerasan terus berjalan, dan justru memperkenalkan aktor-aktor baru dalam aksi nirkekerasan, seperti penggemar KPop, Ibu-ibu kulit putih kelas menengah di Amerika hingga veteran perang. Selain itu, intensitas aksi di berbagai tempat juga meningkat, dan menjadi obyek solidaritas dan pembelajaran transnasional. Namun, di sisi lain aksi-aksi nirkekerasan justru disalah gunakan oleh gerakan sayap kanan seperti gerakan anti vaksin dan anti masker, hingga gerakan supremasi kulit putih, dan juga dapat disambut dengan represi oleh negara dimana aksi tersebut berlangsung. Sebagai penutup, Diah merekomendasikan untuk mewajarkan aksi nirkekerasan sebagai bagian dari kultur demokrasi, dan tidak perlu dihadapi dengan represi.

Sesi dilanjutkan oleh Ihsan yang menyampaikan apresiasinya bahwa database DPD sangatlah penting dalam mendukung studi-studi nirkekerasan di Indonesia, dan merupakan sebuah output yang baik dari kampus. Ihsan mendukung pelibatan Mahasiswa dalam kegiatan riset seperti yang telah dilakukan oleh DPD, dan berharap kampus-kampus di Indonesia dapat menggunakan database aksi nirkekerasan tersebut. Namun, Ihsan juga memaparkan beberapa tantangan yang harus dihadapi oleh tim DPD kedepannya, mulai dari keberlanjutan, hingga kerjasama media, dimana database tim DPD sejauh ini baru dibuat dengan 1 media (KOMPAS) sebagai sumber data. Mungkin untuk kedepannya, Ihsan berharap tim DPD dan IIS dapat memilih alternatif sumber lain selain kompas.

Terakhir, Ihsan menyampaikan sedikit kekhawatirannya atas perubahan dasar aksi nirkekerasan dari luring menjadi daring. Ihsan menekankan, bahwa ada kemungkinan bahwa actor-aktor lama yang sebelumnya aktif dalam gerakan nirkekerasan justru menjadi pasif setelah terjadinya pandemi dan represi rezim. Apakah pemain-pemain baru dalam gerakan nirkekerasan daring menghentikan partisipasi pemain pemain lama? Apakah aktivisme daring yang berdasarkan klik kemudian partisipasi selesai? Bagaimana civil society menghadapi sumber daya daring yang dimiliki oleh negara seperti buzzer dan influencer? Terakhir, Ihsan juga menekankan bahwa laporan juga perlu mencatat mengenai kekalahan-kekalahan aksi nirkekerasan yang terjadi.

Sebagai narasumber terakhir, Puri turut menyampaikan apresiasinya terhadap hasil kerja dari tim DPD, dan berharap bahwa output dari tim DPD dapat digunakan secara luas oleh berbagai pihak. Puri juga memaparkan materinya yang berjudul “Otoritarianisme Digital” sebagai saran untuk tim DPD dalam menjalankan penelitian untuk kedepannya. Otoritarianisme digital menjadi lebih marak setelah terjadinya pandemi, dan ditandai dengan Kerjasama otoritas pemerintahan dengan gerakan-gerakan sayap kanan yang melaksanakan kampanye-kampanye yang bertentangan dan suara-suara masyarakat sipil dan secara tidak langsung menghalangi terjadinya kritik-kritik tegas terhadap pemerintah. Lebih jauh lagi, dalam kasus yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat, otoritas negara juga menjalankan praktik-praktik digital buruk lain seperti espionase, surveillance, hingga intervensi pemilu. Pada praktiknya, otoritarianisme digital yang dilakukan oleh negara mengancam kebebasan berekspresi masyarakat sipil dalam ranah digital.

Sesi ditutup dengan sesi diskusi yang melibatkan para pembicara dengan seluruh peserta diskusi Cangkir Teh, yang berjalan dengan cukup kondusif.

Penulis : Raditya Bomantara

Penyunting : Mariola Yansverio

[RECAP] Cangkir Teh #1 : : “Defending Democracy Amidst a Pandemic–Nonviolent resistance in Indonesia and the World 2020.”

/in , /by

The first Cangkir Teh discussion was held on Monday, February 22nd 2021. The discussion was a collaborative effort between the Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) and Damai Pangkal Damai Team (DPD). This forum’s main agenda is to discuss and dissect the “Defending Democracy Amidst a Pandemic–Nonviolent resistance in Indonesia and the World 2020” report. On this occasion, IIS invited three speakers, which are: Diah Kusumaningrum, International Relations Professor at Universitas Gadjah Mada and researcher at IIS UGM, Ihsan Ali Fauzi, representative of Centre for the Study of Religion and Democracy (PUSAD) Paramadina, and Puri Kencana Putri, representative of Accenture Malaysia and ex-journalist for KontraS. This session was moderated by Cut Intan Auliannisa Isma, Manager of IIS UGM.

Diah started the discussion by explaining the background of the Damai Pangkal Damai initiative, a project aiming to create a database of nonviolent actions in Indonesia during the Reform era. The team, also involving students’ role, has successfully compiled 14.023 nonviolent actions in Indonesia during the reform era. It is hoped that the database would assist actors who are willing to involve themselves in nonviolent actions, including students, indigenous communities, or even journalists who are eager to learn about peaceful journalism. Additionally, Diah also hopes that the government and the police would learn nonviolent principles and implement those in daily life whilst also strengthening democracy in Indonesia. The DPD team believes that the most crucial culture in democracy is conducting contestations whilst implementing nonviolent principles.

The session is then continued by discussing the report’s content. It is hoped that the report would act as a document that can be used in reflecting and learning about nonviolent actions in Indonesia during the Reform era, as it was launched on World Day of Social Justice. The report is divided into several essential parts, starting with an executive summary. Diah stated that in 2020, nonviolent methods of actions were widely adopted in various movements around the world, starting from Indonesia, the US, Tunisia, Hong Kong, and many others–all of which can be categorized in Gene SHarp’s 198 methods of nonviolent action. This proved that the pandemic does not end the mobilization of nonviolent actions in the world; instead, it makes nonviolent action increasingly more important than before.

The COVID-19 pandemic does not diminish the mobilization of nonviolent actions. Instead, it introduces new actors in nonviolent action, such as KPop fans, middle-class white American women, and even war veterans. Other than that, the intensity of actions in various places are also increasing, and they become objects of solidarity and transnational learning. Unfortunately, in some cases, nonviolent actions are often appropriated by right-wing movements, such as anti-mask and anti-vaccine protests and even white supremacist campaigns. It is also regrettable how in many cases, nonviolent actions also receive repression from the state. In her closing statement, Diah advocates for the normalization of nonviolent actions as a part of democratic culture and it should not be met with repression.

Furthermore, the second speaker continued the session, Ihsan, who articulated his appreciation towards the DPD database. Ihsan stated that the database supports nonviolent studies in Indonesia and is a significant and great output from campus. Ihsan also supports students’ involvement in the research process, and he hopes that other universities in Indonesia would use the database. However, Ihsan also expressed a few challenges that the DPD team will face in the future, including continuity and media partnership. So far, the database has only been used by one media (KOMPAS) as a data resource. Ihsan hopes that the DPD team and IIS could pick an alternative partner other than Kompas in the future.

Lastly, Ihsan expressed his concerns about the shifting of the arena from offline to online. Ihsan emphasized that there is a possibility that those who previously actively participated in nonviolent actions have become disengaged because of the pandemic and state repression. Are the new players in online nonviolent actions stop the participation of previous players? Do the participation of online activists stop at clicking their gadgets, or do they go beyond that? How does civil society respond to the online presence of the state through buzzers and influencers? Lastly, Ihsan also stresses that the report also needs to write about the defeat that nonviolent actions experience.

As the last speaker, Putri also expressed her appreciation for the work the DPD team does, she also hopes that many actors in the society could widely use the output of the DPD team. Besides, Putri presented her materials, titled “Digital Authoritarianism” or “Otoritarianisme Digital”, as an input for the DPD team in conducting their future research. Digital authoritarianism becomes more apparent during the pandemic, marked by the government’s collaboration with right-wing movements. Those right-wing groups often involve themselves in advocating voices that are not in line with civil society’s voices; their involvement also indirectly hinders criticism against the government. Furthermore, cases in the US show that the state also involves espionage, digital surveillance, and even intervention in elections. In practice, the state’s digital authoritarianism threatens freedom of expression in the digital sphere.

The forum is closed with a discussion session that involves both the speakers and the participants, which went very well.

Writer : Raditya Bomantara

Editor : Mariola Yansverio

Sistem Senjata Otonom Mematikan : Sebuah Acuan Dasar Untuk Kajian Dan Kebijakan Pemerintah Indonesia

/in , /by

Klik tautan berikut untuk mengunduh file Sistem Senjata Otonom Mematikan : Sebuah Acuan Dasar Untuk Kajian Dan Kebijakan Pemerintah Indonesia [tersedia dalam versi Bahasa Indonesia dan versi Bahasa Inggris] :

http://bit.ly/PrimerKillerRobots

It’s Time to Rethink Jakarta’s Water Governance

/in , , /by

As if the COVID-19 crisis is not enough, Jakarta is now also facing another flood catastrophe. Most recently, flooding affected around 200 neighborhood units (RT) and forced more than 1,000 people to evacuate their homes.

Indonesia is currently facing a series of disasters including floods, landslides, whirlwinds and extreme droughts in some parts of the country. According to the National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB), the number of disasters has nearly tripled in the past five years from around 1,664 in 2015 to 3,023 in 2020.

Of course the usual culprit of these disasters is climate change, which according to Prof. Edvin Aldrian of the Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) is caused by environmental changes and degradation within and without the country.

While it is not untrue, there is more than meets the eye: it is the failure of urban water planning and governance which has contributed to Jakarta’s persistent flooding. Overlooking the root causes will not only undermine the deeper issue, but also shift the attention to quick and temporary technological fixes that only exacerbate the environmental catastrophe.

The flooding in Jakarta this year was timely as Vox, a US media outlet, published a video report on Jakarta’s environmental crisis, which has caused the city to sink as fast as 25 centimeters annually. The report associates this crisis with Dutch-inherited segregated water infrastructure, massive groundwater exploitation and rapid urban development leading to a proliferation of concrete that prevents rainwater from replenishing water lost from the city’s aquifer layers.

These issues, however, cannot be solved with simple technological fixes. Rather they require a rearrangement of water governance that has proven to have failed to provide equal and sustainable access to the city’s population.

This failure is evident in three aspects: the exclusion of the urban poor from the governance process, the blurry lines between rights and responsibilities of the stakeholders, and the elite-centric decision-making process.

In an effort to do so, we can start by rethinking our water governance approach that currently focuses on the centralized water infrastructure to also incorporate a variety of everyday water practices. These have been chosen by people either because they are excluded from the network or because their access is limited due to the weak water pressure, or the unreliable and low-quality supply of the available network.

The reality of water governance in Jakarta is not reflected in the networked infrastructure that only covers 65 percent of the population with the majority of customers coming from middle to lower income households. Considering service unreliability that is not consistent with constant tariff increases, even those who are connected also fulfill their water needs either from groundwater, rainwater harvesting or bottled water.

According to the report from Amrta Institute, more than 60 percent of the city’s water needs are fulfilled by groundwater, which serves nearly two-thirds of the city’s water consumption, or around 630 million cubic metre out of 1 billion m3/year.

Unfortunately, the discussion on Jakarta’s water governance has been biased toward the centralized infrastructure, which is problematic for three main reasons. First, it reinforces a legacy of the colonial government water development planning, which is socially and geographically fragmented. This has inherently prevented the urban poor, especially those who live in informal settlements, from both accessing the piped water infrastructure and participating in the governance process.

Second, centralized piped water infrastructure is often used as a justification for private sector participation due the government’s lack of capacity to fund capital costs. However, as evident in Jakarta, neither public nor private operators have successfully ensured adequate and sustainable water service provision for the population, even those who adhere to pro-poor initiatives.

Lastly, the focus on centralized infrastructure promotes the development of big-infrastructural projects as a band-aid for the environmental catastrophe while neglecting the underlying issue of water governance failure. For example, the construction of a USD$40 billion giant sea wall to prevent seawater from overflowing into the already sinking city does not address the underlying problems and often comes at a cost of forced eviction of many informal settlements which burdens the already excluded urban poor.

Thus, there is a need to look beyond the networked water infrastructure by considering everyday water practices in which people interact within and outside the centralized infrastructure. Such practices include buying water from neighbors, collecting water from public stand-pipes, purchasing from pushcart vendors and extracting groundwater from shallow or deep wells.

Looking at these everyday practices will allow us to unveil the different manifestations of water inequalities in terms of distribution, recognition and participation. For example, research by Kooy and Furlong in 2018 found that over-abstraction of groundwater in rich neighborhoods has led to salinization of shallow groundwater and land-subsidence in poor neighborhoods, exposing the urban poor to higher risk of flooding and poorer water quality.

Equally important, paying attention to everyday water practices will not only allow us to understand the different manifestations of urban water inequality but also enable us to capture local knowledge and practices that have been filling the gap left by the centralized water infrastructure. This will counter the disempowering image of the urban poor as a passive recipient or victim of Jakarta’s unequal water governance.

This article does not seek to diminish the importance of centralized piped water infrastructure or the urgency for people to be connected to a piped water source, instead it seeks to highlight the need to look beyond the centralized network in order to develop a more holistic understanding of Jakarta’s water governance.

Hopefully, this will lead to the creation of an inclusive and sustainable urban water governance that allows for more equitable access to water, increasing recognition and larger space for participation especially for marginalized communities including the poor in informal settlements, women, migrants and the disabled.

 

This article has been published by the Jakarta Post and can also be accessed via the following link: https://www.thejakartapost.com/paper/2021/02/26/its-time-to-rethink-jakartas-water-governance.html

Writer : Marwa

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti