Entries by iis.fisipol

[RECAP] Beyond the Great Wall #8: Cina di Tahun 2020: Tantangan Keamanan Tradisional dan Non Tradisional

/in /by

Di tengah pandemi yang memaksa dunia untuk melakukan karantina diri dan bekerja dari rumah, Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada berkesempatan untuk tetap menyelenggarakan forum Beyond the Great Wall #8 secara daring melalui Google Meet pada 15 Mei 2020. Pada edisi yang ke-8 ini, Beyond the Great Wall menghadirkan dua pembicara yang membahas mengenai tantangan keamanan tradisional dan nontradisional Cina. Pembicara pertama, Fadhil Sulaeman selaku Head of Research and Development di Student Association of Belt and Road Initiative (SABRI) Chapter UGM, membawakan materi yang berjudul “Strategi Tiongkok di Laut Cina Selatan”. Pembicara kedua, Muhammad Reza sebagai Media Analyst di PT Indonesia Indikator, hadir dengan materi yang berjudul “Sistem Jaminan Kesehatan Tiongkok”. Forum BTGW kali ini turut menghadirkan Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro selaku Kepala Departemen HI UGM sekaligus convener kegiatan Beyond the Great Wall serta Lucke Haryo SP, staf Perpustakaan IIS UGM, sebagai moderator.

Sebagai pembuka dalam forum kali ini, Fadhil memaparkan bahwa konflik di Laut Cina Selatan menjadi isu yang sangat penting akibat tiga hal: (1) masuknya kapal asing ke wilayah ZEE Indonesia; (2) adanya klaim dari negara-negara anggota ASEAN dalam Laut Cina Selatan yang merupakan tetangga Indonesia; (3) keterlibatan dua aktor penting dalam politik internasional—Amerika Serikat dan Cina—di dalamnya. Laut Cina Selatan merupakan wilayah yang sangat stategis karena sumber daya alam yang sangat melimpah di dalamnya serta perannya sebagai jalur lalu lintas perdagangan internasional. Tidak hanya itu, selama ini Laut Cina Selatan juga dikenal sebagai zona berbahaya dan chokepoints bagi berbagai bentuk kejahatan transnasional, seperti jalur perdagangan barang ilegal, perdagangan manusia, dan perdagangan narkoba. Mengingat betapa strategisnya lokasi ini, tujuh negara telah melakukan klaim atas Laut Cina Selatan yang saling tumpang tindih. Menurut Fadhil, ada tiga pulau utama yang menjadi rebutan bagi negara-negara yang melakukan klaim atas Laut Cina Selatan, yaitu Kepulauan Spratly, Paracel, dan Scarborough Shoal. Ketiganya memiliki signifikansi yang besar bagi kepentingan Cina, baik di kawasan ASEAN maupun dalam politik internasional secara keseluruhan.

Saat memaparkan mengenai relasi Amerika Serikat dan Cina dalam konflik di Laut Cina Selatan, Fadhil menyatakan bahwa konfrontasi keduanya dalam konflik tersebut terjadi karena keduanya menggunakan landasan hukum yang berbeda untuk mengklaim Laut Cina Selatan. Di satu sisi, Amerika Serikat menggunakan Hak Kebebasan Navigasi sebagai hasil putusan arbitrase internasional yang menyatakan bahwa Laut Cina Selatan adalah laut internasional, sehingga kapal asing yang melewati perairan ini tidak perlu lapor dan pergerakan kapal pun bebas. Di sisi lain, Cina menolak putusan tersebut dan menggunakan Hak Lintas Damai sebagai klaim atas Laut Cina Selatan. Implikasinya adalah seluruh kapal yang lewat wajib lapor kepada Cina dan pergerakannya pun dibatasi. Perbedaan klaim yang tidak berujung pada titik temu, ditambah dengan perbedaan posisi keduanya dalam UNCLOS, menjadikan konfrontasi tidak terelakkan. Walaupun begitu, hingga saat ini konfrontasi keduanya masih sebatas gertakan-gertakan semata, seperti peristiwa kapal AS dan Cina yang sangat berdekatan di Laut Cina Selatan beberapa waktu lalu, namun tidak sampai terjadi konflik bersenjata. Fadhil menutup presentasinya dengan mencoba untuk menjawab pertanyaan apakah AS berani untuk memulai konfrontasi fisik dengan Cina.

“Amerika Serikat adalah satu-satunya negara yang dapat mengungguli kekuatan angkatan laut Tiongkok, tetapi meningkatkan eskalasi akan menggambarkan AS sebagai agresor. Maka dari itu, provokasi dan daya gentar adalah jalan tengah,” ujar Fadhil sekaligus menutup bahasan keamanan tradisional Cina di tahun 2020.

Sesi kedua berfokus pada tantangan keamanan nontradisional Cina di tahun 2020, khususnya pada bidang kesehatan. Muhammad Reza memulai pemaparannya dengan sebuah fakta yang menarik, yaitu bahwa pemerintah Cina baru mereformasi sistem jaminan kesehatannya di tahun 2015. Perubahan tersebut cukup baru, terutama jika dibandingkan dengan Indonesia yang baru merilis BPJS di era kepemimpinan Jokowi periode pertama. Untuk memperbaiki layanan kesehatannya, Cina mengalokasikan dana sebesar 850 juta yuan yang terbagi dalam tiga tipe subsidi kesehatan, yaitu urban employment-based basic yang ditujukan bagi para pekerja di kota, urban resident bagi anak-anak dan pelajar, serta new cooperative for rural residents yang dialokasikan bagi masyarakat pedesaan. Tiga tipe subsidi pembayaran jaminan kesehatan ini berlaku di seluruh Cina, kecuali Macau dan Hong Kong.

Dalam materi yang diberikan, Reza menyatakan bahwa walaupun telah mengalami reformasi, sistem jaminan kesehatan di Tiongkok masih memiliki kelemahan. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari angka reimbursement rawat inap yang tergolong rendah dan terus mengalami penurunan hingga saat ini. Tentu saja, pemerintah Cina terus mengupayakan perbaikan layanan kesehatannya, terutama ketika pandemi COVID-19 muncul di Cina dan menyebar secara masif ke seluruh dunia. Dalam hal ini, upaya Cina untuk mengatasi COVID-19 dinilai oleh berbagai pihak cukup efektif, terutama di tingkat domestik, melalui pemberlakuan lockdown, pengawasan yang sangat ketat, serta pengerahan mata-mata pemerintah dan penggunaan teknologi pengenalan wajah untuk melacak warga negara Cina. Saat ini, pemerintah Cina telah mengupayakan untuk mengembangkan teknologi kecerdasan buatan (artificial intelligence) dalam rangka mencegah munculnya kasus serupa COVID-19 di masa depan. Menurut Reza, alokasi dana yang besar perlahan-lahan mampu memperbaiki sistem jaminan kesehatan di Tiongkok.

Forum ditutup dengan kesimpulan yang disampaikan oleh Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro. Pertama, Nur Rachmat menyatakan bahwa Indonesia dan dunia tidak boleh lengah atas isu Laut Cina Selatan walaupun sedang menghadapi wabah COVID-19. Menurutnya, Indonesia dan ASEAN tidak boleh tunduk begitu saja dengan Cina. Indonesia juga sebenarnya memiliki kewenangan yang cukup besar bagi stabilitas kawasan, terutama jika strategi Cina dinilai mengancam selat-selat Indonesia. Mengenai sistem jaminan kesehatan di Cina, Nur Rachmat menyatakan bahwa sebenarnya wajar jika Cina baru saja memperbaiki sistem jaminan kesehatannya. Namun, perbaikan ini juga disertai dengan pengembangan teknologi artificial intelligence yang cukup masif, bahkan anggarannya melebihi Amerika Serikat. Menurut Nur Rachmat, penggunaan artificial intelligence oleh Cina ke depannya akan sangat masif, baik untuk mengatasi COVID-19 maupun untuk melacak warga negaranya.

Penulis : Brigitta Kalina Tristani Hernawan

Penyunting : Medisita Febrina

South Korean Attitudes in Education during the Coronavirus Pandemic

/in /by

Worldwide educational systems have been affected by the coronavirus through the comprehensive closures of schools and universities. Goverments in about 73 countries implement it as of 56 states closed schools nationwide and 17 others did localized school closures.

South Korea perhaps has the most high-pressure and competitive education system in the world. The first corona virus case in South Korea was detected in January, 2020. South Korean universities have postponed the beginning of spring semester under the recommendation of Ministry of Education. Yonsei University has offered recorded video lectures, real-time telelectures and other learning materials will be provided instead of face-to-face classes until March 28. Ewha Womans University has conducted all classes via remote learning for the first two weeks of the semester. Kookmin University has created online classes for four weeks until April 11, so as Seoul National University and several other institutions. The background is they effort non-pharmaceutical interventions and preventive measures such as social-distancing or self-isolation. It prompted the widespread closure of primary and secondary schools as well as post-secondary schools including colleges and universities. Although the most confirmed patients of COVID-19 are adults, children still able to become the carrier of the virus.

Simultaneously, there are teachers who survive to deal with the shift of teaching in the classroom to online lessons. According to the experiences of Jennifer Gray and Sam Gray, teachers for elementary school grade in an international school in South Korea, they discover about Korean’s attitude in terms of tackling the situation as follows:

  • School regulates four consecutive weeks of distance learning in total. However, teachers and students have commanded one week of in-person class before the stint. This adjustment should be recognized as participation of students, parents/caregivers, teachers, administration, and other faculty under nowadays circumstances. They are engaged to struggle their multiple roles. People who take part believe that they need a community to raise and educate children.
  • Video-conference platforms help teachers to be able to meet students “face-to-face” several times a day including ‘Morning Meetings’ and ‘Closing Cirlce’ besides remote feedbacks on projects and works, live lessons, and small group conferences.
  • Developing skills in technology become an obligation when students have their personal iPads and the state provides best internet connectivity around the globe. Students likewise encourage themselves to grow their independence, problem-solving, resiliency, and ability to follow multi-step directions.

In accordance to 10 things to do list during pandemic situation on the UNESCO recommendation, Korean’s attitude as mentioned above are relevant with those points had created. The advices are:

  1. Examine the readiness and choose the most relevant tools;
  2. Ensure inclusion of the distance learning programmes;
  3. Protect data privacy and data security;
  4. Prioritize solutions to address psychosocial challenges before teaching;
  5. Plan the study schedule of the distance learning programmes;
  6. Provide support to teachers and parents on the use of digital tools;
  7. Blend appropriate approaches and limit the number of applications and platforms;
  8. Develop distance learning rules and monitor student’s learning process;
  9. Define the duration of distance learning units based on student’s self-regulation skills;
  10. Create communities and enhance connection.

Meanwhile, point (3) shows that there is an urgency of protection regarding to data security when uploading data or educational resources to web spaces, as well as when sharing them with other organizations or individuals. This matter should be initially considered by communities or societies which desire to implement an effective way of learning during this period.

South Korea correspondingly has the ‘hakwon’ or after-school activites. This place has doubled or even tripled student’s homework to make up for the class cancellations as reported in Washington Post although it had not happened in all hakwon. Parents started to worry about education gap that has caused by the coronavirus. Particularly in  Mok-dong, an affluent Seoul neighborhood known as a “special education district”. Its abundance of hakwon and good public schools cause parents spend an average of $1,000 a month on after-school classes for their children. People begin to discuss how to make up for cancelled hakwon classes and looking for private home tutors. Despite the government’s advice to close down the hakwon, two-thirds of the 25,000 hakwon in the capital city of South Korea have stayed open until February, 28.

In conclusion, school closures carriers high social and economic costs even though it is temporary. Though disruptions affect people across communities, South Korean’s collective responsibility is ingrained into the cultural psyche. Working parents in other country likely to miss their work when schools are closed in order to take care of their children. Therefore, most Korean putting their wants aside for the good and health of the community has become behavioural nature within society. However, school closures still needs to be reconsidered since how it will be runs among the low-income families who disproportionately lack access to technology, internet, data privacy and data security protection, childcare services, as well as students with disabilities.

 

References:

  • Gray, S. (2020, March 18). Live in a Coronavirus Hotzone. The Marysville Advocate. https://www.
    marysvilleonline.net/health/life-in-a-coronavirus-hot zone/article_1c5287c2-6947-11ea8c6b-4347bf87f75d.html
  • Universities in Seoul shift to online classes amidst virus fears. Yonhap News Agency. https://en.yna.co.kr/
    view/AEN20200228008800315
  • Kim, M.J. & Denver, S. (2020, Feb 28). In South Korea, coronavirus gives kids a break from school
    pressure , but also traps them. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
    world/asia_pacific/in-south-korea-coronavirus-gives-kids-a-break-from-school-pressuresbut-also-traps-them/2020/02/27/713424f6-5896-11ea-8efd-0f904bdd8057_story.html

Writer : Nindita Nilasari

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti

[RECAP] Round Table Discussion: Global Development of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) and Its Implications on Indonesia’s Foreign Policy and Defense

/in , /by

On Friday (6/3), Institute of International Studies, International Relations Department of Universitas Gadjah Mada collaborated with International Relations Department of Universitas Paramadina in organizing Round Table Discussion on Global Development of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) and its implications on Indonesia’s foreign policy and defense. The event was attended by various stakeholders, ranging from government, scholars, the military, researchers, and experts who proceeded to discuss the matter in hand from different perspectives.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the working definition of autonomous weapons (also known as autonomous weapon systems/lethal autonomous weapon systems/killer robots) is a weapon system that possesses autonomy in executing its critical functions of selecting and attacking target without human intervention. Their development is a consequence of the industrial revolution. The lethality of this type of weapon is not inherent in itself. Instead, it depends on the characteristics of the weapons and how they are deployed.

Autonomous weapons are strongly related to international humanitarian law. Notwithstanding their close ties with war practices, there exists a discourse of the use of autonomous weapons in peace, particularly for law enforcement purposes. Many believe the weapon systems are capable of precise targeting, yet the debate on the risk of cyber attack during deployment persists, which constitutes the problem of accountability and alleged violation of international humanitarian law. The debate focuses upon who is responsible: the field operator, the commander, or the creator of its algorithm?

Beside legal considerations, ethics also need to be taken into account. In the forum, questions such as “will autonomous weapons be able to comply with international humanitarian law principles?”, “to what extent should humans have control on weapons?”, “as autonomous weapons are allowed to select and decide upon targets on their own, should it be considered crossing the line?” arose.

Thus far, Indonesian government has not taken a firm stance on the issue. Indonesia still serves as an observer and not a state party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). While Indonesia is not against the accession of the Convention, the government might have other priorities. That said, Indonesia has not come to the realization of the urgency and potential threat of the weapon to humanity, keeping in mind the existence of autonomous weapons will, slowly but surely, develop enormous destructive effect.

It is imperative that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with support from all national agencies, act as the frontline in convincing the government to access CCW. Moreover, CCW need to be translated into Bahasa in order to transform it into national law. In the future, Indonesia is also expected to increase participation in the forum. Otherwise, the discussion will only stay in academic domain.

As business of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is also in trend, Indonesia doesn’t want to be left out. Presiden Joko Widodo wished for UAVs to be developed. However, UAVs were not intended to be weapons originally, but to execute the mission of 3D: dull, dirty, dangerous. In other words, such aircrafts weren’t built to be armed. It changed, later, after the national army Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI) decided that drones should execute military missions. As much as UAV is beneficial, it can disrupt traffic airline, more so when armed. Unlike autonomous weapons, UAV is already regulated under several ministerial regulations.

The existence of autonomous weapons is highly dilemmatic. Their use is beneficial as they will not be able to experience fear, as well as select and attack targets on their own. Furthermore, they are less costly to deploy. On the other hand, autonomous weapons raise questions on the aspects of chivalry, humanity, and morality in war. In this situation, international humanitarian law plays a central role. Instead of limiting a country’s military advancement, international humanitarian law ensures that steps taken by states are in line with humanitarian principles. Its existence highlights how lack of regulation on autonomous weapons brings about concerns of accountability when violation occurs.

Right now, the utmost priority should be placed on defining typology of LAWS, as there is no existing consensus on the term autonomous weapon systems (AWS). Scholars ought to conduct research regarding autonomous weapons since it is a collective responsibility to create discourse on the urgency of the matter. It is important to note that the situation of AWS now is more complex compared to nuclear weapons. Total ban on autonomous weapons is difficult since the weapons are beneficial for military strategy, namely in efficiency and effectivity when destroying opponents in a shorter period. In addition, AWS also possess defensive aspects, making it even more difficult to entirely abolish them. In brief, the problem of AWS lies not on the core of their existence, but rather on how they are deployed.

Writer: Denise Michelle
Translator: Medisita Febrina

[RECAP] Round Table Discussion: Perkembangan Lethal Autonomous Weapon System (LAWS) Global dan Implikasinya Terhadap Politik Luar Negeri dan Pertahanan Indonesia

/in , /by

Pada hari Jumat (6/3) lalu, Institute of International Studies, Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada bekerjasama dengan Departemen Hubungan Internasional Universitas Paramadina kembali mengadakan Round Table Discussion untuk membahas Perkembangan senjata otonom dan implikasinya terhadap politik luar negeri dan pertahanan Indonesia. Round Table Discussion ini kembali mengundang berbagai pihak, mulai dari pemerintah, akademisi, militer, peneliti, serta para ahli untuk mendiskusikan isu ini dari berbagai sudut pandang.

Menurut International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), working definition dari senjata otonom (dikenal pula dengan istilah autonomous weapon system, lethal autonomous weapon system, killer robots) adalah sistem persenjataan apapun yang memiliki otonomi dalam fungsi kritisnya dimana dapat memilih dan menyerang target tanpa intervensi manusia. Perkembangan senjata otonom ini merupakan konsekuensi dari berkembangnya revolusi industri. Masalah mematikan atau tidaknya dari suatu senjata bukanlah hal yang inheren pada senjata, namun tergantung pada karakteristiknya dan bagaimana ia digunakan. Senjata otonom erat kaitannya dengan hukum humaniter internasional. Sampai saat ini ada diskursus bahwa senjata otonom tidak hanya dipakai pada masa perang, namun juga pada masa damai khususnya dalam konteks penegakan hukum. Banyak yang mengatakan bahwa senjata otonom sangat precise targeting, namun perdebatannya adalah bagaimana jika ada risiko serangan siber ketika senjata tersebut dikerahkan, yang sekaligus memicu dugaan pelanggaran dan permasalahan akuntabilitas. Muncul pula perdebatan mengenai siapa yang bertanggung jawab, apakah operator lapangan, komandan, atau pembuat algoritmanya?

Selain pertimbangan hukum, diperlukan pula pertimbangan etis. Dalam forum pun muncul pertanyaan-pertanyaan, seperti “apakah senjata otonom bisa patuh terhadap prinsip-prinsip dasar hukum humaniter?”, “sejauh mana manusia seharusnya memiliki kontrol atas senjata?”, “karena senjata otonom dapat memilih dan memutuskan targetnya sendiri, apakah hal ini crossing the line?”.

Sejauh ini, di level internasional pemerintah Indonesia belum memiliki posisi terhadap eksistensi senjata otonom. Indonesia tidak menentang atau menolak aksesi Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), hanya saja sejauh ini mungkin prioritas negara berbeda. Indonesia pun belum menjadi state party di CCW dan hanya menjadi observer. Dengan fakta bahwa Indonesia hanya menjadi observer di CCW, menunjukkan belum adanya kesadaran Indonesia akan urgensi dan potensi ancaman senjata otonom bagi manusia. Karena cepat atau lambat, eksistensi senjata otonom akan menimbulkan efek destruktif yang besar. Perlu membuktikan kepada pemerintah bahwa aksesi CCW itu penting, dengan melibatkan semua agensi nasional, dimana Kementerian Luar Negeri harus menjadi garda terdepan untuk mewujudkan kepentingan ini menjadi kepentingan bersama. Selain itu, CCW juga harus diterjemahkan ke bahasa Indonesia, yang berarti dalam bentuk hukum. Kedepannya, Indonesia diharapkan pula lebih aktif dalam forum, karena jika tidak, diskusinya hanya akan berhenti di ranah akademis.

Saat ini, bisnis unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sedang tren, sehingga Indonesia tidak mau ketinggalan dalam konteks ini. Presiden Joko Widodo pun menginginkan agar UAV dikembangkan. Awalnya, UAV dibuat bukan untuk senjata, namun untuk melaksanakan misi 3D: Dull, Dirty, dan Dangerous. Pada awalnya, pesawat yang dibangun tidak untuk dipasang senjata, namun TNI ingin agar drone bisa melakukan tindakan sehingga dipersenjatai. Di satu sisi keberadaan UAV menarik, namun di sisi lain ketika diterbangkan, UAV bisa saja mengganggu traffic airline, apalagi jika dipersenjatai. Berbeda dengan senjata otonom, aturan mengenai UAV sudah diatur dalam beberapa permenhub atau permenkominfo.

Jika ditelaah, eksistensi senjata otonom sangat dilematis. Di satu sisi, dalam penyerangan sangat bagus karena tidak takut dan dapat memilih dan menyerang target. Selain itu, senjata otonom cenderung tidak costly. Namun di sisi lain, senjata otonom membuat kita mempertanyakan aspek chivalrous dari perang serta aspek kemanusiaan dan moralitas. Hukum humaniter internasional bukan bermaksud membatasi kebutuhan pengembangan militer suatu negara, namun memastikan agar tindakan yang diambil negara sejalan dengan nilai-nilai kemanusiaan. Kekhawatiran jika senjata otonom digunakan tanpa adanya aturan yang mengatur adalah mengenai pertanggungjawaban jika terjadi tindakan yang melanggar.

Urgensi utama kini adalah untuk mendefinisikan tipologi yang jelas mengenai apa yang dimaksud sebagai LAWS, karena sampai saat ini belum ada konsensus mengenai terma autonomous weapon system (AWS). Para akademisi juga harus mengkaji riset yang berkaitan dengan senjata otonom, sehingga menjadi PR bersama untuk membangun diskursus urgensi isu ini. Situasi AWS jauh lebih kompleks dibandingkan dengan senjata nuklir. Sulit untuk melarang senjata otonom secara total, karena pertimbangannya adalah penggunaan teknologi ini bisa menguntungkan dari sisi militer terutama karena esensi strategi militer, yakni efisiensi dan efektivitas dimana kita dapat mengatasi musuh dalam waktu lebih singkat. Selain itu, AWS juga memiliki aspek defensif sehingga membuatnya sulit untuk dihapuskan secara total. Singkatnya, permasalahan AWS sendiri bukan mengenai esensi dari AWS tetapi bagaimana AWS digunakan.

Penulis: Denise Michelle
Editor: Angganararas Indriyosanti

Proceeding GO SOUTH – Annual Convention on The Global South : Rethinking International Relations in the Era of Technological Disruption

/in /by

12 March 2020 By Publikasi IIS 

 

Publishing Year

2019

Descriptions

Recognizing the relevance of Global South in International Relations, Institute of International Studies UGM marks another milestone by holding the Annual Conference on the Global South: Rethinking International Relations in the Era of Technological Disruption. This conference is expected to bring worldwide leading researchers, academicians, practitioners, and scholars in the field of International Relations and other Social Sciences, especially those with expertise in Global South studies.

 

Keywords

Global south, Industry 4.0

Download (https://simpan.ugm.ac.id/s/x4zNaWwG5pEIU0S)

 

 

Globalization Talk #3 : Globalization Talk and Educating on Globalization

/in , , /by

On Monday (24/02), Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) conducted the third session of the acclaimed Globalization Talk discussion with the theme “Global Citizenship and Educating on Globalization”. On this occasion, IIS UGM have the opportunity to invite Prof. Dr. Ayami Nakaya, Associate Professor at Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC), Hiroshima University, accompanied by Dr. Riza Noer Arfani, Director of IIS UGM to deliver the materials regarding the matter of globalization, global citizenship and education in encountering the phenomenon of globalization. Besides the speakers, IIS UGM also invited Cut Intan Aulianisa Isma, Manager of IIS UGM who is the moderator of the event, as well as several High school teacher representatives athwart Yogyakarta as the guest participant of the event.

Nakaya opened the session by deliberating the quintessential temporal phenomenon of globalization. Globalization unequivocally asserts global implications to various stakeholders, let it be positive nor negative impacts it induces. Ad exemplum, one of the positive impacts imposed by Globalization would be its instantaneous information diffusion, ergo the public have faster access to information. Inasmuch, an expeditious transfer of information prompted the trend of false information dispersal (hoax) nor information that has not been approved of its validity, hence instigating panic and unrest to the public. The introduction was closed with a compelling rhetorical question by Nakaya; “who is capable of averting the negative implications and optimizes the positive aspects of Globalization?”.

The discussion session was recommended by Nakaya by ruminating the exegesis of “Global Citizenship”. Global Citizenship is a solution which asserts public mobility in encountering the impacts of globalization, may it be positive nor negative effects. Nakaya elaborates, that global citizenship can be marked through several features, which is (1) capable of accepting diversity and respect to human rights, (2) exhibiting a collaborative mindset in the sense of exercising dispute settlement mechanisms through cooperative and collective means in the absence of conflict, and (3) situating a positive and active key role in sustaining order among the global community. In order for an individual to possess such features, the paramount importance of honing ones attitude, deep knowledge, cognitive skills, non-cognitive skills and behavioral capabilities should be exercised.

 

 

In order to obtain such key elemental features, globalization education comes to place in fostering such skills. Globalization education acts to foster a just political literacy, sense of violence, and an orientation to social justice. By nature political literacy is mandatory in order to decipher globalization and its implications, hence we can respond properly to the dispersal of globalization. Sense of violence is the awareness to any form of violence, starting from direct violence to ecological violence. The social justice aspect is marked by the apprehension to the concept of justice that is not rigid and sundry in nature, consequently it erects an intellection to assure justice and equality to all parties. The aforementioned aspects can be elaborated through the process of globalization education which should be implemented in Indonesia.

In order to escalate the quality of Global Citizenship, Nakaya offers the concept of Resident Oriented Tourism as a means of development. Resident Oriented Tourism by itself is a form of reciprocal tourism interaction, which does not only bring profit to the tourists that are visiting but also to its local communities, as well it leverages the quality development of human resources in the tourist attraction. In order to realize such practices, the elements of local communities should actively participate in implementing the practices of tourism, and alter the value and image of exclusivity with values that are amiable to global diversity. Nakaya stipulates Yogyakarta as a suitable location in implementing resident oriented tourism and globalization education, due to its status as the epicenter of culture and education in Indonesia. The Special Region of Yogyakarta can act as the hub of global citizenship education through the methods of resident oriented tourism by upholding the value of conviviality, sense of pride to local culture, creativity and active participation in fabricating a tourist destination that is capable of accepting the global community.

The revelation evinced by Nakaya is closed by Riza, who expresses his support towards the importance of Yogyakarta as the epicenter of education and economy in Indonesia. Yogyakarta poses a lucrative potential as a prospective tourist region, and offers the potential in the exchange of ideas, experience and information. The education sector can act as an anchor for the pivot of tourism development. As the director of IIS, Riza also stipulates the affirmed and willingness of IIS in support of educating the community of Yogyakarta pertaining to globalization, which is in line to the stream of research conducted by IIS in the manifestation of advocating. Such alacrity is reflected by the conduct of the previous two antecedent Globalization Talk, viz – Globalization Talk #1 (Jogja Creative Industry Forum) and #2 (Jogja Tourism and Governance Forum) by IIS UGM.

Author : Raditya Bomantara

Editor : Handono Ega P.

Round Table Discussion: Towards Indonesia’s Ratification of Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

/in , /by

On March 5th, Institute of International Studies, International Relations Department of Universitas Gadjah Mada collaborated with International Relations Department of Universitas Paramadina in organizing Round Table Discussion on Indonesia’s process towards the ratification of Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). This event was attended by various stakeholders, including scholars, government, and the military. Dr. Tatok D. Sudiarto, MIB—Head of the International Relations Department of Universitas Paramadina—along with Dr. Muhadi Sugiono, MA– lecturer from International Relations Department of Universitas Gadjah Mada, as well as campaigner of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)—officially started off the event.

The existence of nuclear weapons is closely related to the Cold War. However, nuclear weapons never ceased to develop after it ended. Despite considerable amount of bilateral and multilateral efforts to achieve disarmament, the existence of nuclear weapons endures, partly due to the myth that believes nuclear weapons are beneficial to peace. This condition encouraged civil society, through CSOs, to change the view.

Since 2013, a different perspective in examining nuclear weapons has developed. Instead of mere weapon, nuclear weapons are viewed as a threat to humanity, be it because of its explosion, radiation, or environmental damage. Rather than standing by itself as the only peril to human existence, nuclear weapons might also present itself as a start of an even worse climate crisis.

The effort to abolish nuclear weapons could not succeed through Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as the regime had legal loopholes and lacked legal basis to justify why countries were obliged to disarm. Said flaws encouraged the formulation of Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The enforcement of the treaty gave birth to a legal framework capable of deeming nuclear weapons illegal, so that anyone developing them could be sentenced. TPNW has been adopted since 2017, with 122 countries in favor, 1 abstain, and 1 country against. To date, 82 countries have signed the treaty, including Indonesia. To enable TPNW to enter into force, at least 50 countries have to ratify it. Thus far, 35 countries have ratified the treaty, a large portion of them small countries affected by past trials of nuclear weapons. The adoption of TPNW will not weaken NPT, but rather positively impact its implementation. TPNW requires a greater commitment from state parties on its nuclear program.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reckons that it is inadequate to consider nuclear weapons merely from legal perspective. International humanitarian law believes that regulations on nuclear weapons should refer to the opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1996 on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Referring to the Opinion, nuclear weapons are absolutely prohibited, as they violate plenty of humanitarian principles. However, as it was an advisory opinion, it was not binding and only constituted further debate on what was written. In viewing nuclear weapons, it is also imperative to consider Klausula Martens, which stated that an act of war that has not been specifically regulated under an international community regime needs to be regulated based on humanitarian principles and public opinion.

A few options are available for Indonesia regarding nuclear weapons, which are to ban, to regulate, or to permit its use. Considering Indonesia is one of the first to sign TPNW, she is morally bound to obey the treaty. Therefore, the only thing left to be discussed is its ratification, which relies on the synergy and cooperation between the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The challenge that must be tackled in the process of disarmament is the military opinion that nuclear weapons are vital for deterrence of power, which believes that countries need to possess power to dominate other countries in order to tone down aggression.

Now is the right time to ratify TPNW. In the future led by milennials, perceptions on weapons will shift to a more nationalist, assertive, and aggressive view. Future leaders will not see nuclear as an atomic bomb, but rather as a low-yield nuclear weapon with explosive force of only a few kilotons,  appropriate to be deployed anywhere. Election trends in 2029 might also be utterly different, filled with issues regarding domestic politics, caliphate, and conservative members of the assembly, hindering attention on ratification process that tends to be extensive. Fortunately, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Retno Marsudi, realized the importance of TPNW and declared that Indonesia is on its way to ratification.

One of the critics brought up about RTD is the absence of the term ‘weapon’ in TPNW. Its absence was on purpose, which was to anticipate potential shift of existing definitions due to nuclear technology advancement. However, we need to acknowledge that this extension constitutes a blurred and overgeneralized definition.

It is remarkable that the creation of TPNW succeeded in spite of the resentment from countries who own nuclear weapons. As TPNW was purely initiated by third-world countries or countries from the global south, its formulation was not pressured by nuclear weapon owners and more determined by countries victim to nuclear weapons. In the context of deterrence, nuclear weapons may not constitute large-scale wars, but instead small-scaled ones.

As a middle power, Indonesia is quite influential in shaping the international community to be more predicted and in order. Therefore, it is necessary Indonesia to ratify the TPNW in order to strengthen the international effort to abolish nuclear weapons entirely. Ratification will not inflict a significant loss on Indonesia, but rather bring significant gain to the international community. In addition, the treaty doesn’t limit the development of nuclear energy for peaceful uses.

Lastly, TPNW is expected to change approaches to nuclear weapon as a political tool. The process of ratification is in the hands of the Directorate of International Cooperation and Disarmament of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the president. It is highly dependent on whether the president identifies this issue as an urgent matter or not.

Writer : Denise Michelle
Translator : Medisita Febrina

Round Table Discussion: Rencana Ratifikasi Pemerintah Indonesia terhadap Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

/in , /by

Pada Kamis 5 Maret 2020 lalu, Institute of International Studies, Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada bekerjasama dengan Departemen Hubungan Internasional Universitas Paramadina mengadakan Round Table Discussion untuk membahas proses Indonesia menuju ratifikasi Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Acara ini mengundang berbagai pihak terkait, mulai dari akademisi, pemerintah, dan militer. Acara ini dibuka oleh Dr. Tatok D. Sudiarto, MIB, ketua program studi Departemen Hubungan Internasional Universitas Paramadina, dan Drs. Muhadi Sugiono, MA dari Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional Universitas Gadjah Mada sekaligus campaigner International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

Eksistensi senjata nuklir sangat erat kaitannya dengan perang dingin, namun meskipun perang dingin telah berakhir senjata nuklir masih ada dan terus berkembang. Telah banyak upaya yang dilakukan untuk melucuti senjata nuklir, baik melalui mekanisme bilateral maupun multilateral. Namun yang membuat senjata nuklir masih bertahan hingga saat ini adalah mitos yang terus berkembang atasnya, salah satunya adalah mitos bahwa senjata nuklir dianggap memiliki manfaat untuk mendamaikan. Hal ini membuat masyarakat sipil, melalui civil society organization (CSO) merasa perlu adanya upaya untuk mengubah pandangan ini.

Sejak tahun 2013, muncul perkembangan pandangan yang berbeda tentang senjata nuklir. Senjata nuklir bukanlah senjata, melainkan ancaman kemanusiaan yang jika digunakan bisa mengancam kemanusiaan, baik karena ledakannya, radiasinya, maupun dampaknya terhadap lingkungan. Jika dilihat, dua ancaman eksistensi manusia saat ini adalah perubahan iklim dan senjata nuklir. Senjata nuklir bisa menjadi awal dari perubahan iklim yang semakin parah. Upaya menghapus senjata nuklir tidak dapat dilakukan dengan rezim Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) yang ada, karena di NPT ada celah hukum dan tidak ada basis hukum yang menyatakan alasan mengapa negara-negara harus melucuti. Berkaca pada kekurangan dalam NPT, maka mendorong lahirnya Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Dengan berlakunya TPNW, lahirlah kerangka hukum yang membuat nuklir menjadi senjata ilegal, sehingga siapapun yang mengembangkannya dapat dipidana. TPNW telah diadopsi sejak tahun 2017, dengan  122 negara yang mendukung, 1 negara abstain, dan 1 negara menolak. Sejauh ini, telah ada 82 negara yang menandatanganinya, termasuk Indonesia. Untuk membuat TPNW enter into force, perlu setidaknya 50 negara untuk meratifikasinya, sejauh ini 35 negara telah meratifikasinya. Sebagian besar adalah negara-negara kecil yang terdampak oleh adanya senjata nuklir karena pernah menjadi lokasi uji coba. Dengan diadopsinya TPNW tidak akan memperlemah NPT, malah memberi dampak positif bagi implementasi NPT. TPNW menuntut komitmen yang lebih besar dari state-party terkait program nuklirnya.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) memandang bahwa senjata nuklir tidak cukup jika hanya dilihat dari aspek hukum. Dari perspektif hukum humaniter, yang menjadi tolak ukurnya adalah pendapat mahkamah internasional tahun 1996. Namun, yang disampaikan oleh mahkamah internasional hanya bersifat advisory opinion, sehingga sifatnya kurang mengikat dan apa yang dituliskan cukup membawa perdebatan yang lebih panjang lagi. Senjata nuklir adalah sesuatu yang mutlak dilarang, karena berdasarkan asas hukum humaniter, banyak sekali prinsip humaniter yang dilanggar. Dalam melihat senjata nuklir, perlu mengingat adanya klausula martens, yakni ketika ada sebuah peraturan atau tindakan peperangan yang belum diatur secara spesifik dalam rezim komunitas internasional, maka senjata atau perilaku tersebut harus diatur berdasarkan prinsip kemanusiaan dan bagaimana publik berkata.

Indonesia memiliki beberapa pilihan terkait isu ini, yaitu melarang, meregulasi, atau membiarkan. Mengingat bahwa Indonesia adalah salah satu negara yang pertama menandatangani TPNW, berarti Indonesia telah terikat secara moral. Yang perlu dibahas adalah bagaimana bentuk ratifikasinya. Perlu ada sinergi dan kerjasama antara Kementerian Pertahanan dan Kementerian Luar Negeri dalam hal ini. Meski demikian, dari sudut pandang militer, senjata nuklir dibutuhkan karena adanya deterrence of power, dimana setiap negara harus mempunyai kekuatan untuk menguasai negara lain dan negara lain akan melakukan hal yang sama. Dalam militer dipercayai bahwa jika suatu negara kuat dan mempunyai senjata, maka negara lain tidak akan melakukan agresi. Karenanya sulit untuk melakukan disarmament.

Kini adalah kesempatan emas untuk meratifikasi TPNW. Karena kelak, ketika generasi milenial memimpin pada tahun 2030, cara pandangnya akan berbeda dan cenderung lebih nasionalistik, asertif, dan agresif. Di masa depan, generasi tersebut tidak akan memikirkan nuklir seperti bom atom, melainkan sebagai low-yield nuclear weapon yang daya ledaknya hanya beberapa kiloton dan dapat digunakan dimana saja. Tren pada pemilu 2029 pun bisa saja sangat berbeda, terkait dengan politik domestik, khilafah, serta elit politik di DPR yang menjadi lebih konservatif, sehingga proses ratifikasi akan lebih sulit. Mengingat di DPR membutuhkan waktu yang lama dari saat penandatanganan hingga ratifikasi. Namun dalam pesannya untuk ICAN, Retno Marsudi, Menteri Luar Negeri Indonesia, menyadari pentingnya eksistensi traktat ini dan mengatakan bahwa Indonesia sedang dalam proses menuju ratifikasi. 

Salah satu kritik yang dilontarkan dalam RTD ini adalah ketiadaan terma ‘senjata’ dalam TPNW. Ketiadaan terma senjata nyatanya merupakan sesuatu yang disengaja untuk mengantisipasi state party agar tidak berupaya menyalahgunakannya. Karena perlu disadari bahwa perkembangan teknologi akan menggeser definisi-definisi yang telah ada, sehingga maknanya sengaja diperluas untuk mengantisipasi perkembangan teknologi kedepannya yang turut melibatkan nuklir. Meski harus diakui bahwa memang membuat definisinya menjadi sangat luas dan kurang jelas. 

Meski demikian, TPNW lahir dari proses yang cukup unik karena semua negara pemilik senjata nuklir sangat takut dan tidak menyukai traktat ini. TPNW murni diinisiasi oleh negara dunia ketiga atau negara-negara Selatan. Sehingga dalam proses inisiasi dan pembuatannya pun tidak ada tekanan dari negara-negara yang memiliki senjata, namun justru dari negara korban. Ini merupakan traktat yang justru ditolak dan dihindari oleh negara-negara pemilik senjata nuklir karena secara tegas menyatakan bahwa senjata nuklir dilarang. Dalam konteks deterrence, senjata nuklir mungkin tidak menghadirkan perang dalam skala besar, namun berbeda halnya dengan perang skala kecil.

Indonesia sebagai negara kekuatan menengah (middle power) memiliki kedudukan yang cukup  berpengaruh dalam menciptakan dunia internasional yang lebih terprediksi dan teratur. Penting bagi Indonesia untuk segera meratifikasi TPNW. Karena dengan meratifikasi, Indonesia berarti memperkuat norma internasional dalam rangka penghapusan senjata nuklir secara total. Tak hanya itu, meratifikasi TPNW tidak memberikan kerugian yang signifikan bagi Indonesia, karena biaya yang dikeluarkan cenderung rendah, namun membawa dampak positif bagi dunia internasional secara relatif signifikan. Selain itu, dalam traktat ini tidak ada pembatasan pengembangan energi nuklir selama untuk tujuan damai (peaceful uses). Traktat ini diharapkan dapat membawa perubahan dalam cara pandang terhadap senjata nuklir sebagai alat politik. Proses ratifikasi ada di tangan Direktorat Keamanan Internasional dan Perlucutan Senjata Kementerian Luar Negeri dan Presiden. Namun yang menjadi persoalan adalah, apakah presiden melihat isu ini sebagai sesuatu yang mendesak atau tidak.

Penulis: Denise Michelle
Editor: Angganararas Indriyosanti

Globalization Talk #3 : Global Citizenship and Educating on Globalization

/in , , /by

Pada hari Senin, 24 Februari 2020 Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) menyelenggarakan sesi ketiga kegiatan Globalization Talk yang bertajuk “Global Citizenship and Educating on Globalization”. Dalam kegiatan ini, IIS UGM berkesempatan mengundang Prof. Dr. Ayami Nakaya, Associate Professor dari Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC) Hiroshima University, yang didampingi oleh Dr. Riza Noer Arfani, Direktur IIS UGM untuk menyampaikan materinya mengenai globalisasi, kewarganegaraan global dan Pendidikan dalam menghadapi globalisasi. Selain para pembicara, IIS UGM juga mengundang Cut Intan Aulianisa Isma, manajer IIS UGM yang berperan sebagai moderator dan beberapa perwakilan guru dari Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA) Lingkup Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta sebagai peserta tamu.

Acara dibuka dengan pemaparan oleh Nakaya yang menyampaikan pengantar mengenai fenomena globalisasi. Globalisasi tentunya membawa efek global ke berbagai kalangan, baik itu dampak positif maupun negatif. Sebagai contoh, salah satu dampak positif globalisasi adalah persebaran informasi yang lebih cepat, sehingga masyarakat global lebih cepat mengakses sebuah informasi. Namun, persebaran informasi yang cepat tersebut juga diikuti oleh tren penyebaran informasi yang salah (hoax) ataupun informasi yang belum dapat ditentukan kebenarannya, sehingga justru menimbulkan kepanikan maupun keresahan bagi masyarakat. Pengantar ini ditutup dengan sebuah pertanyaan yang menarik dari Nakaya, yaitu: “Siapakah yang dapat menangkal aspek negatif dan mengoptimalkan aspek positif dari globalisasi?”

Sesi pembahasan materi dilanjutkan Nakaya dengan membahas mengenai penjabaran dari “Global Citizenship.” Global Citizenship merupakan solusi yang membuat masyarakat dapat mempersiapkan diri untuk menghadapi dampak-dampak globalisasi, baik dampak positif maupun negatif. Nakaya menjelaskan, global citizenship dapat ditandai dengan beberapa ciri: yaitu (1) mampu menerima diversitas dan dapat menghormati hak asasi manusia, (2) memiliki pola pikir yang bersifat kolaboratif dan kooperatif dengan manusia lain untuk menyelesaikan sebuah masalah secara kolektif tanpa konflik, dan (3) memainkan peran aktif dan bersifat positif dalam tatanan masyarakat global. Untuk memiliki ciri-ciri tersebut, diperlukan beberapa elemen umum yang harus dipenuhi, yaitu attitude, deep knowledge, cognitive skills, non-cognitive skills dan behavioral capacities.

 

 

Untuk memenuhi elemen-elemen penting tersebutlah, maka edukasi globalisasi diperlukan. Edukasi globalisasi berperan untuk menumbuhkan literasi politik yang baik, sense of violence, dan orientasi social justice. Literasi politik merupakan sebuah keharusan dalam memahami globalisasi dan pengaruh-pengaruhnya, sehingga kita dapat merespon persebaran globalisasi dengan tepat. Sense of violence merupakan kesadaran atas bentuk-bentuk kekerasan, mulai dari direct violence hingga ecological violence. Aspek social justice ditandai dengan pemahaman akan konsep justice yang sangat beragam dan tidak rigid, sehingga muncul pemikiran untuk memastikan keadilan dan kesetaraan untuk semua pihak. Seluruh aspek diatas dapat dikembangkan melalui proses edukasi globalisasi yang tepat dan diterapkan di Indonesia

Untuk meningkatkan kualitas Global Citizenship, Nakaya menawarkan konsep Resident Oriented Tourism sebagai sarana pengembangnya. Resident oriented tourism sendiri merupakan sebuah bentuk interaksi pariwisata timbal-balik, yang tidak hanya membawa keuntungan bagi turis yang berkunjung namun juga penduduk lokal daerah tersebut, dan tentunya akan membantu mengembangkan kualitas sumber daya manusia di lokasi pariwisata. Untuk merealisasikannya, elemen-elemen masyarakat lokal harus berpartisipasi aktif dalam penyelenggaraan pariwisata tersebut, dan merubah nilai -nilai dan imej eksklusivitas dengan nilai-nilai yang ramah terhadap diversitas global. Yogyakarta sendiri dinilai Nakaya merupakan sebuah lokasi yang cocok untuk mengembangkan resident oriented tourism dan edukasi globalisasi, karena statusnya sebagai pusat budaya dan pendidikan di Indonesia. Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta dapat berperan menjadi pusat edukasi global citizenship lewat metode resident oriented tourism, dengan menjunjung nulai-nilai keramahan, kebanggaan akan budaya lokal, kreativitas, dan partisipasi aktif dalam menciptakan destinasi pariwisata yang dapat menerima masyarakat global.

Pemaparan Nakaya ditutup oleh Riza yang menyatakan dukungannya atas pentingnya posisi Yogyakarta sebagai pusat ekonomi dan pendidikan di Indonesia. Yogyakarta merupakan daerah yang memiliki potensi pariwisata yang luar biasa, dan menawarkan potensi pertukaran ide, pengalaman dan informasi yang potensial. Sektor Pendidikan dapat menjadi jangkar yang menjadi fokus pengembangan pariwisata tersebut. Sebagai direktur IIS, Riza juga menyatakan kesiapan dan kesediaan IIS dalam mendukung edukasi masyarakat Yogyakarta tentang globalisasi, yang sejalan dengan hilirisasi riset IIS dan  berbentuk advokasi. Kesiapan ini tercermin dengan penyelenggaraan dua edisi Globalization Talk sebelumnya, yaitu Globalisation Talk #1 (Jogja Creative Industry Forum) dan #2 (Jogja Tourism and Governance Forum) oleh IIS UGM.

Penulis : Raditya Bomantara

Penyunting : Angganararas Indriyosanti

The Anti-‘Killer Robots’ Agenda: Mapping Obstacles and Exploring Possibilities for Indonesia’s Role

/in /by

Status Quo Overview

The issue of killer robots has been discussed in UN General Assembly for the past few years. ‘Killer robots’ itself is a popular terminology to describe Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) that, once activated, can select and engage dismounted human targets without further intervention by a human operator (ICRC, n.d.). At this point, it’s important to make a distinction between LAWS and drones; while drones still need human decision to an extent and are not limited to military purposes, LAWS are based on algorithms, therefore they do not necessarily require human’s affirmation before attacking their preset targets. In 2018, nearly 50 states addressed killer robots concerns in their statements to the 73rd session of the UNGA, including regarding the needs for regulation, ensuring a guarantee of human control, as well as ethical and moral questions and humanitarian law foundations about LAWS.

Recently, in the 2019 GA Session, dozens of states wished to negotiate a treaty to retain meaningful human control over the use of force, where 30 states have agreed to ban fully autonomous weapons or LAWS. However, this is not yet the final conclusion or even an universally agreed goal of CCW meetings. In reality, discussing this issue under CCW framework in the UNGA poses a fair number of problems. First is the slow pace of its progress. Instead of reaching a conclusion about drafting regulations or abolishment, states agreed to spend the next two years developing a “normative and operational framework” to address concerns raised by such weapons systems (Wareham, 2019). Second is regarding the substantive aspects, in which states still argue about the very essence of LAWS which makes it difficult to proceed further. At this point, there is yet to be a consensus on whether LAWS should be banned or regulated, as well as contending ideas about whether the legal instrument should be a voluntary agreement or legally binding rules. These confusions prolong the eventual technical steps needed to create a convention.

Since 80% of past General Assembly resolutions are agreed by consensus, political interests of states is also another thing to consider, especially those of major power states with generally bigger bargaining positions. In the case of LAWS, big powers have stakes in whether or not killer robots should be prohibited since many of such states have already developed their own LAWS, including 4 out of 5 Security Council permanent members excluding France, all of which rejected the ban for LAWS (Ray, 2018). Moreover, some states tend to be non-contributive in the debate. As reported by Human Rights Watch, during the discussions of LAWS, United States was mostly silent and Russia was mostly obstructive (Ray, 2018). China meanwhile called for a ban only for the use but not the development LAWS, which is seen as a strategy to give them leniency in pursuing such technology for their own advantage. These attitudes then hamper states’ agreement on possible multilateral action to address the risk of LAWS. Regarding this, it has been criticized that rather than a political forum for debate on key issues, the First Committee agenda has turned into a resolution-generating machine, from which repetitive, redundant resolutions are tabled and voted on year after year (Reaching Critical Will, n.d.). And since no common understanding or consensus the goal has been reached, even the prospect of any resolution is still difficult.

Why do Middle Powers Need to be Involved?

The global discourse of LAWS is often framed as an ‘AI race’ between great powers, a situation being fed by how major powers are the ones with the highest possibility of using such technology as means of warfare. However, there are reasons why middle power states, even those without possession of LAWS, should be getting more involved in LAWS discourse. First, due to the nature of middle powers themselves. Defined here as states with level of influence below those of superpowers, but significant enough of it to become valuable players in the international level, middle powers have strategic position to influence international events. It has been explained before how debates on killer robots are often stunted by the unwillingness of major powers, and a multilateral approach must be taken in order to produce an internationally-agreed basis for the ban of LAWS. Here, one of middle powers’ characteristics which is their tendency to rely on diplomacy to pursue foreign policy goals can be influential in shaping the global norms of LAWS (Britannica, n.d.). With enough number of states being vocal for the ban of LAWS, major powers will have more reasons to submit to the norm. As we cannot wait for major powers to somehow drop their interests to secure themselves in the security dilemma, therein lies middle powers’ ‘normative’ reason to be involved in the issue of killer robots.

Discussing about norms-shaping, at this point it’s also important to remember how states are not the only stakeholders in the issue of LAWS. We cannot disregard the role of weapon manufacturers—often working for the demands of states. A survey by PAX shows a concerning result: 30 out of 50 arms producers are categorized as ‘high risk,’ meaning that they work on increasingly autonomous weapon systems and do not appear to have a policy or stance against LAWS (PAX, 2019). As private entities, the only way to be able to control what is or what is not being produced by these manufacturers is the existence of a universal, legal standard regarding LAWS. Having such legal standard promptly gives economic certainty to companies engaged in military technology producing, since they can avoid the eventual loss that might happen if the weapon they are producing suddenly becomes illegal. This is also why defense contractors including Germany’s Rheinmetall called for government to work for a treaty. The existence of a treaty will also serve as a common norm that discourages participating in economic activities that contribute to LAWS as a dangerous, high-risk, and unethical technology. Not limited to weapon manufacturers, such norm should be pushed to prevent technology companies from assisting the creation of AI-based LAWS for military purposes. However, since international humanitarian laws are only applicable to state entities and to some extent individuals, states still have to be the main party to be involved, yet another reason for middle powers to drive the agenda to shape such norms.

The second reason is a rational one. Although it is widely known that LAWS is an advanced military technology which not every state possesses, the nature of this technology has the possibility to change the outlook of modern warfare for good, which affects not only those who possesses such technology. The lack of control over killer robots and their usage mainly benefits major military powers who already have developed such technology. Vice versa, when LAWS is not outlawed or prohibited, states who do not possess such technology will be placed in a risky position due to the resulting uneven arms race. This serves as an incentive for non-possessing states to be more vocal for a ban, especially since ‘catching-up’ to major powers’ current mastery and possession of LAWS is not an easy feat to do. In place of a security dilemma, it is more logical for non-possessing states to halt further possibilities of LAWS-based warfare. In this aspect, perceiving LAWS as something disadvataging in the long run rather than just an objective pursued by major military powers serve as a  rational consideration for middle power states to hopefully be engaged to drive the agenda on LAWS prohibition.

Additionally, the current lack of LAWS in some states must not be taken for granted. If no ban is in place, it’s not impossible that other countries especially developed middle powers will follow developments in this field, guided by their own strategic context and security interests. In fact, for states such as Israel, India, and South Korea, LAWS present an opportunity to effectively police borders and respond to potential skirmishes among others (Ray, 2018), which they have begun to do so. The usage of autonomous systems for border security purposes is not a black-and-white matter—it is fair to mention that such technology might help prevent unnecessary human casualties by providing automated surveillance system, especially in heavily militarised area or in states with no large standing personnel capacity (Ray, 2018). Therefore, what needs to also be emphasized is whether or not humans retain control over the decisionmaking, an important distinction in the discussion of LAWS. There should be a consensus that a meaningful human control must be possessed by any kind of military technology to ensure responsibility of attacks as well as adhering to humanitarian law principles. This is precisely the task of international community and state actors to include humanitarian concerns in the debate of LAWS and in the formation of a potential international norms as has been discussed above.

Mapping Indonesia’s Role, or Lack Thereof  

As of now, regional organizations to some extent have been becoming stakeholders in pushing the abolishment of killer robots agenda. For example, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) parliamentary assembly has adopted a declaration urging the 57 OSCE member states “to support international negotiations to ban lethal autonomous weapons,” although this will ultimately be up to each country’s decision. Furthermore, specifically in the context of ASEAN as a regional body, the discourse of LAWS is not as advanced, perhaps due to how most of its member states are not openly pursuing the usage of LAWS. In one hand, this situation is relieving, but as has been explained, states that are  traditionally not ‘big players’ in the international arena must also step up and be proactively engaged in the global discussion on LAWS abolishment. here is no justification to ignore possibilities of LAWS, especially with how Southeast Asian states are surrounded by major powers’ geopolitical contestations which might expose these countries to the utilization of LAWS while they themselves have no similar capacity. Moreover, with some of the aforementioned states being a maritime power, it is also worthy to consider that autonomous weapon systems have been regarded as an effective means to guard maritime sovereignty, enhance maritime domain awareness (MDA), and deter incursions (Ray, 2018).

The question right now would be, where’s Indonesia? Currently, Indonesia is not listed as one of the countries wanting to ban killer robots, nor the ones opposing said ban. However, Indonesia has spoken several times about the issue of LAWS, including as a representative for Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) during the 74th session of First Committee General Assembly agenda.  Therefore it is safe to say Indonesia endorses NAM’s stance that a preemptive ban on killer robots is necessary, and to quote Indonesian representative’s statement on behalf of NAM, “Issues surrounding LAWS should be deliberated thoroughly in conformity to internationai law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.” Furthermore, since NAM States Parties to CCW also support the establishment of an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) related to LAWS, it is fitting for Indonesia to be involved in a bigger capacity (Campaign To Stop Killer Robots, n.d.) by simultaneously highlighting the importance of multilateral efforts in disarmament and non-proliferation of LAWS as .has been mentioned during aforementioned NAM’s statement (Djani, 2019).

Indonesia itself has a good reason to take the mantle of regional leader. One visible advantage to this is public image: by taking the first step to be a state that supports the prohibition of LAWS and publicly stating its position against the usage of LAWS, Indonesia might be able to showcase its commitment as a formidable but peaceful middle power, as well as cementing its role as a prominent pioneering figure in both ASEAN and NAM. Not to mention, pushing for killer robots ban would also mean playing our role as a current member of both UN Security Council and Human Rights Council, a feat made better if it successfully encourage other member states to follow in the footsteps. Furthermore, to circumvent the slow process in the international fora, a regional-based appropriate frameworks regarding LAWS can be employed as one of the ways to pursue this agenda, and set the stepping stone for a international norm against LAWS.

Now is a good time as any to take the step: one reason to be optimistic about this is the apparent popular civilian support for a ban against LAWS. Global civil society seemingly has apprehensively reacted towards the existence of LAWS. A global poll taken by Ipsos in 26 countries showed  that 61% of the global respondents are opposed to killer robots. This number of opposition in an increase from the previous two years (Campaign To Stop Killer Robots, 2020). Additionally, YouGov survey across ten European countries in October found strong support for the goal of banning killer robots with more than seven in ten respondents favored their country working for an international ban on lethal autonomous weapons systems (Campaign To Stop Killer Robots, 2020). With Campaign to Stop Killer Robots that advocates for LAWS international ban has recently been launched in Southeast Asia as a regional coalition, it hopefully can take measures not only to influence decision makers through diplomatic channels but also disseminate knowledge to the general public about the risks of LAWS, which consequently may affect decisionmaking in the state level, especially in such democratic country to push for LAWS ban.

Bottom line, taking into account the current obstacles being present in the international fora as well as the pressing urgency to create a global norm regarding the ban of LAWS, the ideal thing for Indonesia is to take a firm stance and play the leadership position among the region and among middle powers to advocate this issue.With more stakeholders being vocal about how LAWS should be treated, the international community can bypass the current stagnancy and move on to produce an international legal framework.

References

“Autonomous Weapon Systems – Online Casebook.” Accessed January 8, 2020. https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/autonomous-weapon-systems.

“Defending Multilateralism in 2019.” The Campaign To Stop Killer Robots. Accessed January 8, 2020. https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2019/12/defending-multilateralism-in-2019/.

“Global Poll Shows 61% Oppose Killer Robots.” The Campaign To Stop Killer Robots. Accessed January 8, 2020. https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2019/01/global-poll-61-oppose-killer-robots/.

“Middle Power,” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed February 26, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/topic/middle-power.

“Statement by H. E. Amb. Dian Triansyah Djani, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Indonesia on Behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.” First Committee General Debate, 74th Session of the UN General Assembly. New York, October 7, 2019.

“UN General Assembly First Committee.” Reaching Critical Will. Accessed January 8, 2020.  http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/unga.

“UN Head Calls for a Ban.” The Campaign To Stop Killer Robots. Accessed January 8, 2020. https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2018/11/unban//

PAX, ‘Slippery Slope: The arms industry and increasingly autonomous weapons,’ PAX Report, November 2019.

Ray, T. ‘Beyond the ‘Lethal’ in Lethal Autonomous Weapons: Applications of LAWS in

Theatres of Conflict for Middle Powers.’ ORF Occasional Paper (180), 2018, 4.

Wareham, M. “Ringing the Alarm on Killer Robots.” Human Rights Watch, November 21, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/20/ringing-alarm-killer-robots.

Writer: Heidira Witri Hadayani
Editor: Yunizar Adiputera, Angganararas Indriyosanti