Entries by iis.fisipol

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

Beyond the Great Wall #7 : China’s Challenge in early 2020

/in , , /by

Beyond the Great Wall #, 7 is the first edition of the notorious Beyond the Great Wall Forum that occurs in the year of 2020. On this occasion, the Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) invited two key speakers to scrutinize the threats to China in the early years of 2020 which may impede the economic development of China. For the main speaker, IIS UGM invited Nurrudin Al Akbar, a doctoral student in Political Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada brought up the topic titled as “Wuhan Jiayou: China’s tale in Challenging the Social Construct in the Era of Pot-Truth?”, Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, a lecturer in the discipline of International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada became the second speaker who brought out a contextualization in the book “Red Flags: Why Xi’s China is in Jeopardy?”. In this BTGW series, IIS UGM invited Indrawan, a researcher at IIS UGM as the moderator.

As we all know that in early 2020, China struggles to face the dire dispersion of the Coronavirus disease 209 (Covid2019), which has now become a global pandemic that spans through a myriad of states globally. Nuruddin stipulates that there is a trend of narration and construction by the International media nor the Western which situated China as the “convict” who initiated the Coronavirus. The construction and narration become relevant, due to its capability to influence the international community’s perspective towards China. Hence, creating an accusation over China’s negligence in hindering the dispersion of the aforementioned virus. According to Nuruddin the negative construction towards China by in turn may hamper the Chinese government’s efforts in managing the spread of coronavirus.

This particular trend is abbreviated by Nurudin as the era of “Post Truth”—in which information that is fashioned in such manner consequently erects uncertainty and a vexatious environment to the masses. The information that is fabricated and given to the public regarding the existence and mitigating measures utilized, by in turn becomes the trigger to several problematics, such as fret towards the spread of the virus, excessive fear, the lack of trust towards the government, and to its peak, would be the inception of Sino phobic sentiments and racism directed towards the global Chinese ethnicity. Ironically, the construction towards uncertainty has previously occurred during the spread of the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) epidemic as well as the MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) epidemic.

[layerslider id=”23″]

 

The phenomenon of “Wuhan Jiayou” that occurs in Wuhan, that is the center of the Coronavirus spread is remarked by Nuruddin to be potentially vexing in facing the construction within the era of Post Truth, which also includes the complication in managing the dispersion of the coronavirus. The Chinese government should appeal to the Wuhan Jiayou spirit in order to deconstruct and foster the awareness of synergetic movements in tackling the spread of the virus. The impact imparted by the Wuhan Jiayou has the effect of deconstruction directed towards the Western media which inclines to postulate on racist based elucidation towards China. Ergo, by changing such narration to a new narration that postulates on the notion of human integrity and unity, exhibits an image that the Wuhan community of China requires a moral foundation and support in facing the corona epidemic.

Notwithstanding, if the first session contemplates over the complications that the Chinese government faces in tackling the Coronavirus, the second session postulates over the book review of “Red Flags: Why Xi’s China is in Jeopardy?” by Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro.  In order to decipher over the reality in which the Chinese government under Xi Jinping’s’ administration is in jeopardy, the book explores on four different key points that may threaten and destabilize the economic growth of China, in correlation to the symbolization and philosophy of the Chinese flag (Red Flags).

The first issue faced by the Chinese government would be the debt issues, in which contemporary Chinese economic growth is steered by debt which may dismantle Chinese economic stability. This also correlates to the second issue that is the Yuan and Renminbi currency that is still swayed by the Chinese government in the context of mobility and exchange rate. The third issue would be the Middle-Income trap, which is caused by the state control over several industrial sectors, hence causing difficulties for China to advance their next stage of development. The fourth issue would be the aging population phenomenon, hence rendering an unproductive working-age population. Four of these issues are regarded to negate Chinese economic development to the possibility of collapse. Furthermore, four of these issues may threaten the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and it may erect distrust by the public towards the party, hence leaving it to a state of Jeopardy as emphasized by Magnus.      

Writer : Raditya Bomantara
Editor: Handono Ega P.

Populism: Democracy’s Secret Killer

/in /by

2020 is expected to be an eventful year for global politics, especially with The United States (US) presidential elections scheduled for November. These elections raise concerns amongst international relations scholars on the future condition of democracy globally. This concern is mainly due to the rise of populism in international politics. Boris Johnson’s recent election as prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan rise to power in Turkey and the completion of Donald Trump’s first presidential term highlights a shift towards populist sympathies within politics. The global rise in populism over the past few years is problematic for countries and is very damaging for the state of democracy around the world.

Populism is a term used to describe a particular leadership style and is often associated with anti-establishment leaders. There are a few characteristics that identify populism as a separate style of leadership. These characteristics consist of: criticism towards the status quo, victimizing minorities, weaponizing public anger and the claim to be an anti-pluralist and anti-establishment (Muller 2016). Populism happens when there has been, “mobilization of a mass movement in pursuit of political power, this element theorizes that populists thrive where ties between voters and bureaucratic parties do not exist or have decayed.” (Kenny 2018). Trump, a populist leader, rose to power due to his disassociation with establishment politics and the mobilization of rust belt workers public anger (Sligo 2018). Populism differs greatly from identity politics because populism is especially damaging on the functioning of a democracy. Populism often creates a downgraded form of democracy that promises to create a good democracy (Muller 2016).

Donald Trump’s rise in popularity is a further evidence of the global trend amongst voters in favour of populist leaders. Donald Trump rose to power in the US by utilising populist tactics to gain votes. Trump presented himself as an anti-establishment and anti-pluralist candidate option to win the support of disassociated and disenfranchised voters. He also combined the demands and consolidated the concerns of rust belt workers, thus gaining their support (Sligo 2018). Populist tactics ultimately won Trump the 2016 election. Trump also displays a variety of other characteristics of a populist leader. For example, his continual attack on minorities by often using of them as a scapegoat for national issues. Trump does this by attacking the Latin immigrant population blaming crime and drug problems on this minority community (Anbinder 2019). These traits not only mark Trump as a populist leader but highlight the damages he has caused on the functioning of America’s democracy.

Donald Trump’s presidency as an anti-establishment, populist leader has had a severe impact on standard of America’s democracy.  A clear ramification of Donald Trump presidency is his damage on the freedom of the press, a tool he uses to build his anti-establishment image. Trump’s does this through consistent attacks on journalists as the “enemy of the people” and the labelling of many news agencies as producers of “fake news”. These actions by Trump undermine the legitimacy of the press and its important democratic function to hold those in power accountable. Trumps vilification of journalists as enemies’ positions them to be working against the interests of the people thus, influencing the American populous perception of the press. Further, The White House Press Secretary has also significantly reduced the number of press conferences held in the White House limiting the presses access to Government reporting. These subtle actions undertaken by Trump limit the US citizens ability to access free press causing a downgrade in America’s democracy. In 2019 The Economist’s Democracy Index, America is rated as a flawed democracy with a 7-8 rating out of 10. Thus, proving the negative impact Donald Trump has had on the functioning of America’s democracy.

The impact of the rise in populist movement is already causing a ripple effect globally.   In the Economist 2019 Democracy Index, only 22 out of 167 countries were classified as a full democracy and only 54 out of 167 countries were classified as a flawed democracy. The global democracy score is 5.44 which is the lowest score since The Economist started the democracy index in 2006 (The Economist 2019). When looking at these figures of democracy’s current struggle, it is important to consider the patterns and fluctuations of democracy that have always occurred since its creation. Therefore, whilst there may be a decline in the global standard of democracy, it is important to believe in the strength of democracy as it is likely to recover in the years to come as leaders come and go (Carothers and Youngs 2017).

 

References:
Anbinder, Tyler. 2019. “Trump has spread more hatred of immigrants than any American in history.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-has-spread-more-hatred-of-immigrants-than-any-american-in-history/2019/11/07/7e253236-ff54-11e9-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html.

Carothers, Thomas, and Richard Youngs. 2017. “Democracy is not Dying .” Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-04-11/democracy-not-dying.

Kenny, Paul. 2018. Populism in Southeast Asia. Cambridge : Cambride University Press.

Muller, Jan. 2016. What is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sligo, Frank. 2018. “Trump’s Populism.” Media International Australia 169: 131-143.

The Economist. 2019. Democracy Index 2019. Washington: The Economist.

Writer: Ellie Hawthorne

Editor: Angganararas Indriyosanti

IIS UGM Visit to PT Dirgantara Indonesia: Considering Drone Development Prospect in Indonesia

/in , , /by

Indonesian should be proud with the newly-introduced Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) drone named Elang Hitam (translated as: Black Eagle), on the end December 2019. Responding the newly-introduced drone, Raditya Bomantara, S.IP, Farah Andri, S.Ds, dan Denise Michelle from Disseminationa and Outreach of Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) visited the headquarter of PT Dirgantara Indonesia (PT DI) as a part of the global movement: Campain on Killer Robots, on Monday (20/01/2020). Muhammad Nainar and Ardya Paradipta from PT DI, as a representative from the team that developed the drone, briefed our team from IIS about Elang Hitam drone that day. The goal of our visit is to earn more informations and discuss further about the development of MALE drone and the use of its technology in Indonesia

MALE Elang Hitam is a project initiated by the Ministry of Defence, which also involves Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology, Indonesian Air Force’s Research and Development body, and Bandung Institue of Technology, National Institute of Aeronautics and Space, PT DI, and PT Len Industri. Facing many difficulties in supervising the country borders became the start of Indonesian drone development. The lack of supervision on the borders had become an opportunity for smugglers, which then costs the government a fair amount. For that reason, MALE drone will be operated as a surveillance device for the borders with an intensive sortie (up to 24 hours), which would be impossible if the government use conventional aircraft.

[layerslider id=”20″]

There is a plan to arm MALE Elang Hitam, however, Nainar assured that the MALE developd right now is still far-fetched from what we know as Killer Robots. Ardya infromed that MALE drone will act as a reconnaissance, with borders surveillance sortie to transfer images using camera to the mission control. Those image then would be processed by the operator, before deciding further actions. This shows that the operational of MALE drone has not been fully autonomous and still dependant on human in the loop. Even if it is unarmed, MALE will still be able to help border surveillance by sending needed informations that later will be processed by the Indonesian Army.

At the end of the discussion, to reassure people worries about the use of MALE as killer robots, Nainar repeated that Indonesia still has a long way from adopting the killer robots technology. Other than technological factors, the MALE drone performance still need to be assessed and developed until it could be licensed and operated. The MALE technology will be used to supervise borders and not as a weapon since it is what Indonesia needs right now. MALE will also be potential in disaster mitigation such as forest fire, flood, and landslide. MALE will also be useful to get atmosphere imagery that will help with weather forecast. It has a lot more possible benefits other than just as a weapon of destruction if the government used it selectively and carefully.

After the discussion, our team had a chance to visit other facilities inside PT DI to directly observe the drone Wulung, which is the MALE predecessor, also some vehicles that operates as the mission control for the drones. Our team wrapped the visit with a photo session and token exchange with the representatives of PT DI.

Author : Denise Michelle, Raditya Bomantara

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti, Muhammad Nainar PT DI

Kunjungan IIS UGM ke PT Dirgantara Indonesia: Menilik Prospek Pengembangan Teknologi Pesawat Nirawak di Indonesia

/in , /by

Masyarakat Indonesia tentunya boleh berbangga dengan diperkenalkannya Pesawat Udara Nirawak (PUNA) terbaru kelas Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) pada akhir Desember 2019 lalu yang diberi nama Elang Hitam. Sebagai respon atas pengenalan pesawat nirawak tersebut, Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) yang diwakili oleh Raditya Bomantara, S.IP, Farah Andri, S.Ds, dan Denise Michelle dari divisi Diseminasi dan Outreach IIS UGM, melakukan kunjungan ke kantor pusat PT Dirgantara Indonesia (Persero) sebagai bagian dari kampanye global Campaign on Killer Robots pada Senin (20/1/2020) lalu. Sebagai narasumber, pihak PT Dirgantara Indonesia (DI) diwakili oleh Muhammad Nainar selaku project manager MALE dan Ardya Paradipta selaku perwakilan dari tim pengembang pesawat nirawak MALE Elang Hitam. Adapun tujuan dari kunjungan tersebut adalah untuk menggali informasi dan berdiskusi lebih dalam tentang progres pengembangan drone dan teknologi pesawat nirawak di Indonesia.

MALE Elang Hitam merupakan proyek inisasi Balitbang Kementerian Pertahanan dengan konsorsium yang terdiri dari Kementerian Pertahanan, Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi (BPPT), Dinas Penelitian dan Pengembangan Tentara Nasional Indonesia Angkatan Udara (Dislitbangau), Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Lembaga Penerbangan dan Antariksa Nasional (LAPAN), PT DI dan PT Len Industri. Pengembangan drone tersebut diawali oleh kesadaran Pemerintah Indonesia yang mengalami kesulitan dalam mengawasi wilayah perbatasan. Kurang optimalnya pengawasan wilayah perbatasan sering dimanfaatkan oleh pihak yang tidak bertanggung-jawab untuk menyelundupkan komoditas illegal, sehingga menimbulkan kerugian yang tidak sedikit. Sebagai respon atas fenomena tersebut, pesawat nirawak MALE diproyeksikan sebagai sarana pengawasan wilayah perbatasan dengan tingkatan sorti yang lebih intensif dalam sehari (waktu operasional mencapai 24 jam), yang tentunya mustahil dilakukan apabila menggunakan pesawat konvensional karena keterbatasan fisik manusia.

[layerslider id=”20″]

Meskipun Pemerintah Indonesia memang mempertimbangkan untuk melengkapi MALE Elang Hitam dengan sistem persenjataan, Nainar memastikan bahwa MALE masih terlalu jauh dari apa yang kita kenal sebagai “Killer Robots”. Ardya menekankan bahwa fungsi utama MALE adalah untuk fungsi reconnaissance, dengan tahapan sorti pengawasan perbatasan, mengirim citra dengan menggunakan kamera kepada kontrol misi, dan kemudian diproses oleh operator sebelum menentukan tindakan lebih lanjut. Dengan kata lain, operasional MALE masih mengandalkan model human in the loop sehingga tidak sepenuhnya otonom. Tanpa senjata pun, MALE dapat membantu pengawasan perbatasan dengan memberikan informasi yang kemudian ditindaklanjuti oleh TNI selaku pengawas perbatasan.

Pada akhir sesi diskusi, untuk menjawab kekhawatiran masyarakat terhadap penggunaan MALE sebagai senjata Killer Robots,  Nainar kembali menekankan bahwa Indonesia masih sangat jauh dari mengadopsi senjata Killer Robots. Selain beberapa faktor, seperti kekurangan teknologi, kepastian atas performa dan fungsi MALE tersebut harus menunggu berbagai tahapan yang harus dilewati oleh pesawat nirawak tersebut sebelum mendapatkan lisensi resmi dan layak operasional. Dari segi kebutuhan Indonesia sendiri, teknologi yang diusung MALE ini diproyeksikan sebagai wahana pengintai dan perbatasan, bukan sebagai platform persenjataan layaknya drone sekelas yang dimiliki oleh negara lain. Bahkan, MALE juga memiliki potensi untuk digunakan dalam sektor lain, yang membutuhkan keunggulan citra visual dari kamera MALE, yaitu mitigasi bencana alam seperti kebakaran hutan, banjir, longsor dan pencitraan atmosfer untuk mempermudah ramalan cuaca. Potensi yang dimiliki oleh pesawat nirawak jauh lebih besar dibandingkan pemanfaatan yang hanya semata-mata sebagai senjata pembunuh apabila digunakan dengan cermat dan selektif,.

Seusai sesi diskusi, tim IIS mendapatkan kesempatan untuk tur disekitar fasilitas hanggar PT DI dan mengamati langsung pesawat nirawak “Wulung” yang merupakan pesawat nir awak produksi PT DI pendahulu MALE, serta wahana kendaraan yang digunakan sebagai pusat kontrol misi pesawat nirawak. Terakhir, kunjungan ditutup dengan sesi foto bersama dan penyerahan suvenir kepada Nainar selaku perwakilan dari PT Dirgantara Indonesia.

Penulis : Denise Michelle, Raditya Bomantara

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti, Muhammad Nainar PT DI.

Press Conference #2 Natuna Waters Dispute : Legality of Nine Dash Line

/in , /by

On Tuesday (14/1), the Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) held a press conference to discuss two important issues in international politics in early 2020. One of them is the territorial dispute of Natuna waters between  Indonesia and China.

Indrawan Jatmika, researcher at IIS UGM said that Indonesian government tends to move too slowly and is less responsive in responding to actions taken by China, who disrupts the North Natuna Sea by the inclusion of fishing boats and coast guard patrols that trespasses Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). China often uses its historical setting, namely nine dash lines, as its foundation to claim the South China Sea region. Even though these nine dash lines clearly contradicts UNCLOS and intersects with Indonesia’s EEZ boundaries.

“The steps Indonesia is currently taking tend to try to tackle rather than to prevent the problem, because the issue in South China Sea was brought to attention at the beginning of the decade of 2010, especially in 2013-2014 when China began to have power due to rapid economic development,” Indrawan said.

Since the beginning of his administration in 2014, President Jokowi felt that the South China Sea case was not an Indonesian affair, therefore, there was no need for Indonesian interference. This then became a mindset that continues to this day. So when an issue like this occurs, the government is not ready and yet has a strategy to deal with it. As a result, each of the ministries’ responsibilities were intertwined, with each ministry having its own position to overcome this issue.

With Indonesia’s tendency ignoring this issue, Indonesia loses the opportunity to become an ASEAN leader. In fact, since the creation of ASEAN in 1967, Indonesia has always been regarded as the leader of ASEAN. This is quite unfortunate according to Indrawan. Indonesia should be able to lead and multilaterally consolidate ASEAN member countries to determine joint steps and attitudes to respond to China, while bringing this issue to various international forums on behalf of ASEAN.

Domestically, Indonesia also needs to be more assertive and ready to overcome this issue. Sending the military to Natuna or building a military base to Natuna doesn’t mean that Indonesia challenges China into a open war, but rather shows the readiness of Indonesia to defend it’s territorial sovereignty.

 

[layerslider id = “18”]

Indrawan’s explanation was followed by a presentation by Randy Wirasta Nandyatama, UGM lecturer in International Relations and an expert on Southeast Asian politics and security studies. According to Randy, this Chinese presence in Natuna is important because the fishing boats are escorted by coast guards who according to UNCLOS are paramilitary, because they are assisted by the state by providing escorts. This is the problem and makes the whole ordeal more complicated.

According to Randy, China took this action because it depended on the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The CPC can continue to rule if it can guarantee economic growth, maintain territorial integrity, and love of the motherland’s propaganda (nationalism).

“The territorial integrity point is a point that intersects with this case, because the CPC must defend the South China Sea which is considered as rightful territory of China. Most likely, the Chinese Government will find it difficult to retreat because according to China, the South China Sea is important for Chinese territorial integrity, “Randy said.

Previously, Indonesia limited its involvement in the issue of the South China Sea because Indonesia did not claim the Spratly Island in the waters of the South China Sea, so that previously there had been no dispute and direct contact between Indonesia and China. But now, it is important for Indonesia to be actively involved and more responsive in overcoming violations of regional sovereignty. Because in an international dispute, a country that can take care of an area and manage it seriously, it will be seen as more important and more appropriate for that region. This is what China is trying to pursue.

In line with what Indrawan said earlier, Indonesia’s response was considered to be less coordinated. The various ministry and institutions involved do not have uniform responses to this issue. So what can be done by the government is to coordinate more seriously and make stronger and well directed diplomacy efforts to maintain Natuna waters.

“Indonesia has so far ignored the historical fishing rights of China, so Indonesia needs to go deeper into the foundation and reasons for China to intervene in Natuna. “There is also a need for an agreement option between the two countries where the two countries can work together and utilize resources simultaneously,” Randy concluded his presentation.

Author: Denise Michelle

Editor: Angganararas Indriyosanti

Press Conference #1 : US and Iran Conflict Escalation after the Death of General Soleimani

/in , /by

Tuesday (01/14/2020), Institute of International Studies, Department of International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) held a press conference responding the issue of conflict escalation between the United States and Iran. The murder of Major General Qasem Soleimani by the US drone attack escalate the tension between the two countries. This raises fears of a war between the two countries, which could possibly trigger World War III. To analyze the possibility of the aforementioned war, there are several things to consider. On this occasion, IIS UGM invited Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, Head of the Department of International Relations Universitas Gadjah Mada and Yunizar Adiputera, MA., Lecturer at the Department of International Relations Universitas Gadjah Mada.

The United States has a long history of involvement in the Middle East region due to Israel’s existence as the US’ closest ally. It is no secret that the US is the enemy of most Middle Eastern countries. On the other hand, Iran is one of the US enemies who aggressively continues to develop its strength, and in response US is always trying weaken and hinder the development of Iran. The killing of Soleimani can be interpreted as US latest effort, with the justification that Soleimani had the intention to attack several strategic targets in the US.

But in reality, the justification’s validity mentioned by the White House is still unproven. On the contrary, there are statements stating that Donald Trump carrying out the attack as a diversion of issues to reduce the burden on the US domestic affairs. One of them being Trump’s impeachment, as well as an effort to boost Trump’s popularity in the upcoming election. This tactic was also used by former US President, George H. Bush Sr. who intervened in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. However, this strategy can turn against Trump if Trump’s political opponents use the economic issue as consideration in initiating war, whereas the condition of the US economy is actually not strong enough to support a war economy if the US declare war with Iran.

 

[layerslider id = “19”]

 

Can the US attack that killed Major General Qasem Soleimani be justified under International Law?

“It is difficult to justify (the attack). According to international law, the logic that has been built so far is only that (General Qasem Soleimani) is a terrorist, while according to international law, attacks can only be carried out on the basis of self-defense or if there is an imminent threat “

-Yunizar Adiputera, M.A, Lecturer in the Department of International Relations, Gadjah Mada University.-

In addition to the problems of US domestic affairs, there is a problem with the validity of attacks carried out against Soleimani under the international humanitarian law. An attack can only be justified as an act of self-defense or in response to an imminent threat. Trump said that this attack was a form of US self-defense against plans and acts of terrorism driven by Soleimani. It is difficult to justify the validity of the attack on Soleimani because until now, there has been no significant evidence of the threat brought by Qasem Soleimani. In addition, whether the attack are legal or not, the attack that killed Soleimani was also an unwise and unreasonable decision, because it could create a crisis and escalate conflict in the Middle East region.

 

Will the conflict between the two countries escalate so that it can trigger World War III?

“The United States and Iran both possess nuclear power, and if they fight, it will only create large-scale damage and the prospect of MAD (mutually assured destruction)”

-Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, Head of the Department of International Relations, Gadjah Mada University –

For now, the possibility of World War III is considered by both interviewees as an unrealistic possibility due to several factors. First, the political situation is very different from the situation before World War I and II, where the majority of countries avoid open warfare and choose diplomacy. Second, the domestic factors of the two countries in conflict. On one hand, the US is affected by weak public support for war and also economies that are not ready for large-scale war, and on the other, Iran also has a military force far more inferior than the US, and the choice to declare war to US can lead to strategic blunders. Third, the prospect of mutually assured destruction that will occur because both the US and Iran both have nuclear weapons, which if used will only cause large-scale damage and harm both US and Iran along with other countries involved.

 

What can Indonesia do?

At the end of the session, the two speakers reminded of the significance of diplomacy in the modern era. DIHI and IIS UGM will always prioritize diplomacy and will not promote warfare as a solution. Although many parties consider the prestige of diplomacy to be less popular after several phenomena such as Brexit and Trump who prefer to use the power of the United States over diplomatic channels, in reality diplomacy has become more important than in previous eras. In this case, the Government of Indonesia can use diplomacy to prevent conflicts between the United States and Iran from escalating further.

 

Author: Raditya Bomantara

Editor: Denise Michelle

Beyond the Great Wall #6: Reconciliation of Economy and Environment

/in , /by

Environmental interests often clashes with economic ones, as if we have to choose one and sacrifice the other. However, one of the eco-city projects in China, Tianjin Eco-City, says otherwise. Arinda Putri, Bachelor of Political Science from Department of International Relations Universitas Gadjah, shared the results of her research on this matter in the 6th Beyond the Great Wall (BTGW), a bi-monthly public discussion organized by the Institute of International Studies on political, social, or economic issues related to China, on Friday (6/12). Alongside Arinda, M. Irsyad Abrar, student from Department of International Relations, and Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, Head of the Department and the initiator of Beyond the Great Wall, attended the event as speakers.

In Irsyad Abrar’s explanation related to the challenges and responses of China to its energy security, it was conveyed that, until today, coal is still dominantly used in China, regardless of the environmental complication it caused.

“… in volume, (the use of coal) jumped very dramatically. This problem rises in line with the rise of China as the country with the second largest economy in the world.”, said Abrar.

Domestic pressure from the citizens, especially on the East Coast, as well as pressure from the global community has led China to try to use energy perceived ‘cleaner’ than coal, namely petroleum, natural gas and other new renewable energies. However, these resources have not been able to replace the massive use of coal. This is because the increased supply of alternative resources has not been able to match the speed of energy consumption increase in China.

“Several news channels reported that numerous coal mines are closing. In fact, a number of new coal mines, in Northeast China region of Manchuria, gained the permission to open recently.”, added Abrar.

Although a tone that tends to be pessimistic appears from the coal sector, the Tianjin Eco-City project brings a breath of fresh air in Chinese ecological discourse. Responding to the surge of coal consumption in China, various efforts were being done, including the establishment of Eco-City projects.

“There are several eco-city projects that have been initiated by the Chinese government since 2003. Most of them failed, but the Tianjin Eco-City project in collaboration with the Singapore government proves otherwise,” said Arinda.

[layerslider id = “17”]

This cooperation is carried out by means of exchanging resources between Singapore and China, namely  the transfer of water resources technology by enforcing the sovereignty of the water sector; procurement of water reclamation facilities; and restoration of Lake Jing, which functions as pollution disposal target  for over four decades.

“Through this collaboration, Tianjin has  become the first city in China where people are able to drink tap water.” explained Arinda further.

From an economic perspective, the impact of this collaboration is massive, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has increased since 2007. Moreover, in 2010-2014, Tianjin have had more than 10,000 tourists and 1000 companies with interest in investing.

A low-carbon behavior was also shown by residents of Tianjin Eco-City. One results of research conducted to local resident stated that 67.3% of respondents said they were willing to pay a monthly premium to support environmentally friendly electricity. Along with it, an environment-related education is also being taught from primary school. As a result, citizens from grass-root level acquired a better understanding of the concept of green and eco-city.

On the downside, this cooperation has allowed a wider sphere of authority owned by the companies. This has led to several compliance issues and surge other problems to local politics.

Nevertheless, the Eco City cooperation have cracked an answer to an ‘either or’ case of economy and environment, a long overdue debate.

At the end of the discussion, Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro symbolically closed the discussion to mark the end of the first BTGW  series. All six discussion conducted in this series has been an insightful introduction  to China’s politics and social issues. Beyond the Great Wall series will come back with a new format next year, stay in touch!

 

Author: Sonya Teresa Debora
Editor: Thifani Tiara Ranti

Rilis Pers #1 Eskalasi Konflik Amerika Serikat dan Iran : Kemungkinan Perang Dunia ke-III?

/in , /by

Selasa (14/1/2020), Institute of International Studies, Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) menyelenggarakan konferensi pers sebagai respon atas isu eskalasi konflik diantara Amerika Serikat dan Iran. Terbunuhnya Mayor Jenderal Qasem Soleimani oleh serangan pesawat nirawak Amerika Serikat menjadi pemicu eskalasi tensi diantara Amerika Serikat dan Iran. Hal ini menimbulkan kekhawatiran akan terjadinya perang antara kedua negara, yang dapat memicu Perang Dunia III.  Untuk menganalisa kemungkinan terjadinya Perang, ada beberapa hal yang harus dipertimbangkan. Dalam kesempatan ini, IIS UGM menghadirkan Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, Kepala Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional Universitas Gadjah Mada dan Yunizar Adiputera, MA., Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Amerika Serikat memiliki sejarah keterlibatan yang panjang di kawasan Timur Tengah karena eksistensi Israel sebagai sekutu dekatnya. Bukanlah rahasia umum bahwa Amerika adalah musuh dari sebagian besar negara Timur Tengah. Di sisi lain, Iran merupakan salah satu seteru AS yang secara agresif terus mengembangkan kekuatannya, sehingga AS akan berusaha untuk melemahkan dan menghambat perkembangan Iran. Pembunuhan Soleimani dapat diinterpretasikan sebagai salah satu bentuk dari upaya tersebut, dengan justifikasi bahwa Soleimani memiliki niatan untuk menyerang beberapa target strategis di Amerika.

Namun pada kenyataannya, justifikasi yang disebutkan oleh pihak Gedung Putih tersebut masih belum bisa dibuktikan keabsahannya. Sebaliknya, muncul pandangan yang menyatakan bahwa Donald Trump melakukan serangan tersebut adalah sebuah pengalihan isu untuk mengurangi beban dalam negeri AS yang sedang marak dengan isu pemakzulan Trump, sekaligus sebagai upaya mendongkrak popularitas Trump pada pemilu yang akan datang. Siasat ini pernah diterapkan oleh mantan Presiden AS, George H. Bush Sr. yang mengintervensi dalam invasi Irak ke Kuwait. Namun siasat ini dapat berbalik merugikan Trump apabila lawan politik Trump menggunakan isu ekonomi sebagai pertimbangan dalam inisiasi perang, dimana kondisi perekonomian AS sebenarnya tidak cukup kuat untuk mendukung ekonomi perang apabila AS berperan dengan Iran.

[layerslider id=”19″]

Apakah Serangan Amerika Serikat yang menewaskan Mayjen Qasem Soleimani dapat dibenarkan menurut Hukum Internasional?

“Sulit dibenarkan secara hukum internasional, logika yang dibangun selama ini hanya bahwa iya (Jenderal Qasem Soleimani) adalah orang jahat atau teroris, sementara dalam hukum internasional serangan hanya bisa dilakukan atas dasar pembelaan diri (self-defense) atau jika ada ancaman yang mendesak (imminent)”

-Yunizar Adiputera, M.A, Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada.-

Selain problematika urusan domestik AS, terdapat problematika keabsahan serangan yang dilakukan terhadap Soleimani apabila ditinjau dengan hukum humaniter internasional. Sebuah serangan hanya  dapat dibenarkan sebagai tindakan bela diri (self-defence) atau respon atas sebuah ancaman yang mendesak (imminent threat). Trump mengatakan bahwa serangan ini adalah bentuk self-defence AS terhadap rencana dan aksi terorisme yang dimotori oleh Soleimani. Sulit untuk menjustifikasi keabsahan serangan atas Soleimani karena hingga saat ini belum ada bukti berarti akan ancaman yang dibawa oleh Qasem Soleimani. Selain itu, terlepas dari problematika legal atau tidaknya serangan tersebut, serangan yang menewaskan Soleimani juga merupakan sebuah serangan yang tidak bijak dan tidak masuk akal, karena dapat menciptakan krisis dan eskalasi konflik di kawasan Timur Tengah.

 

Apakah konflik diantara kedua negara akan mengalami eskalasi sehingga dapat memicu Perang Dunia III?

“Amerika Serikat dan Iran sama-sama memiliki kekuatan nuklir, dan apabila keduanya berperang, hanya akan menciptakan kerusakan skala besar dan prospek terjadinya MAD (mutually assured destruction)”

-Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, Kepala Departemen Hubungan Internasional Universitas Gadjah Mada –

Untuk saat ini, kemungkinan terjadinya Perang Dunia III dinilai kedua narasumber sebagai sebuah kemungkinan yang tidak realistis karena beberapa faktor. Pertama, situasi politik yang sangatlah berbeda dengan situasi sebelum Perang Dunia I dan II, dimana mayoritas negara menghindari perang terbuka dan memilih diplomasi. Kedua, faktor domestik dari kedua negara yang berkonflik. Disatu sisi AS dipengaruhi oleh dukungan publik yang lemah atas perang dan juga ekonomi yang tidak siap untuk perang skala besar, dan disisi lain Iran juga memiliki kekuatan militer yang jauh lebih inferior dibandingkan AS sehingga pilihan untuk melakukan perang terbuka dapat mengarah kepada blunder strategis. Ketiga, prospek mutually assured destruction yang akan terjadi karena baik AS dan Iran sama sama memiliki senjata nuklir, yang apabila digunakan hanya akan menimbulkan kerusakan skala besar dan merugikan kedua negara.

 

Apa yang bisa dilakukan oleh Indonesia?

Pada akhir sesi rilis, kedua narasumber mengingatkan akan signifikansi diplomasi di era modern. DIHI dan IIS UGM akan selalu mengutamakan jalur diplomasi dan tidak akan mempromosikan peperangan sebagai solusi. Meskipun banyak pihak menilai pamor diplomasi menjadi kurang populer setelah beberapa fenomena seperti Brexit dan Trump yang lebih memilih menggunakan power Amerika Serikat dibanding jalur diplomasi, namun pada kenyataannya justru diplomasi menjadi lebih penting dibanding era sebelumnya. Pada kasus ini, Pemerintah Indonesia dapat menggunakan jalur diplomasi untuk mencegah konflik diantara Amerika Serikat dan Iran bereskalasi lebih jauh.

Penulis : Raditya Bomantara

Penyunting : Denise Michelle

Rilis Pers #2 Sengketa Perairan Natuna antara Pemerintah Indonesia dengan Cina : Legalitas Nine Dash Line

/in , /by

Selasa (14/1) lalu, Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) mengadakan konferensi pers untuk membahas dua isu penting dalam politik internasional yang mengawali tahun 2020 ini. Salah satunya adalah sengketa perairan Natuna yang terjadi antara Pemerintah Indonesia dengan Pemerintah Cina.

Indrawan Jatmika, selaku peneliti IIS menyampaikan bahwa pemerintah Indonesia cenderung bergerak terlalu lambat dan kurang responsif dalam menanggapi aksi yang dilakukan Cina di Laut Natuna Utara dengan masuknya kapal nelayan dan patroli penjaga pantai yang berdasarkan Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif (ZEE) merupakan teritorial Indonesia. Cina kerap menggunakan latar historisnya, yaitu nine dash lines sebagai landasannya dalam mengklaim wilayah Laut Cina Selatan. Padahal nine dash lines ini jelas bertentangan dengan UNCLOS dan bersinggungan dengan batas ZEE Indonesia.

“Langkah yang diambil Indonesia saat ini cenderung mengobati dibandingkan mencegah, karena isu di Laut Cina Selatan sudah bergulir ketika awal dekade 2010 terutama di tahun 2013-2014 ketika Cina mulai memiliki power akibat perkembangan ekonomi yang berkembang pesat,” ujar Indrawan.

Sejak awal pemerintahannya di tahun 2014, Jokowi merasa bahwa kasus Laut Cina Selatan bukanlah urusan Indonesia sehingga tidak perlu campur tangan Indonesia. Hal ini kemudian menjadi mindset yang terbangun dan berlanjut hingga saat ini. Sehingga ketika isu seperti ini terjadi, pemerintah cenderung tidak siap dan belum memiliki strategi untuk menanganinya. Yang terjadi malah saling lempar tanggung jawab antar kementerian, dimana masing-masing kementerian memiliki posisinya masing-masing dalam mengatasi isu ini.

Dengan Indonesia yang cenderung mengabaikan isu ini, maka Indonesia kehilangan kesempatan untuk menjadi pemimpin ASEAN. Padahal, sejak awal berdirinya ASEAN tahun 1967, Indonesia selalu dianggap sebagai pemimpin ASEAN. Hal ini cukup disayangkan menurut Indrawan. Indonesia seharusnya dapat memimpin dan melakukan konsolidasi secara multilateral ke negara-negara anggota ASEAN untuk menentukan langkah dan sikap bersama untuk merespon Cina, sekaligus membawa isu ini ke berbagai forum internasional atas nama ASEAN.

Secara domestik, Indonesia juga perlu lebih tegas dan siap dalam mengatasi isu ini. Dengan mengirimkan militer ke Natuna atau membangun pangkalan militer ke Natuna bukan berarti tantangan perang dari Indonesia, namun lebih menunjukkan kesiapan Indonesia untuk menindak pelanggar kedaulatan wilayah Indonesia.

[layerslider id=”18″]

Kemudian dilanjutkan dengan pemaparan oleh Randy Wirasta Nandyatama, dosen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional UGM sekaligus pakar kajian politik dan keamanan Asia Tenggara. Menurut Randy, kasus Cina ini menjadi penting karena kapal nelayan dijaga oleh penjaga pantai yang menurut UNCLOS adalah paramilitary, karena dibantu oleh negara dengan memberikan pengawalan. Inilah yang menjadi masalah dan membuat masalah tersebut menjadi pelik.

Menurut Randy, Cina melakukan aksi ini karena bergantung pada legitimasi Partai Komunis Cina (PKC). PKC dapat terus berkuasa apabila dapat menjamin pertumbuhan ekonomi, menjaga integritas teritorial, dan propaganda kecintaan tanah air (nasionalisme).

“Poin integritas teritorial menjadi poin yang bersinggungan dengan kasus ini, karena PKC harus mempertahankan Laut Cina Selatan yang dinilai merupakan hak Cina. Kemungkinan besar, Pemerintah Cina akan sulit untuk mundur karena menurut Cina, Laut Cina Selatan penting bagi integritas teritorial Cina,” ujar Randy.

Sebelumnya, Indonesia membatasi keterlibatannya dalam isu Laut Cina Selatan karena Indonesia tidak mengklaim Pulau Spratly di perairan Laut Cina Selatan, sehingga sebelumnya belum ada sengketa dan singgungan langsung antara Indonesia dan Cina. Namun kini, penting bagi Indonesia untuk terlibat aktif dan lebih responsif dalam mengatasi pelanggaran kedaulatan wilayah ini. Karena dalam sengketa internasional, negara yang dapat menjaga sebuah wilayah dan mengelolanya secara serius, maka akan dipandang lebih penting dan lebih pantas akan wilayah tersebut. Hal inilah yang berusaha dikejar oleh Cina.

Sejalan dengan yang disampaikan Indrawan sebelumnya, respon Indonesia dinilai kurang terkoordinir. Berbagai lembaga dan institusi yang terlibat tidak memiliki keseragaman respon terhadap isu ini. Sehingga yang dapat dilakukan adalah koordinasi yang lebih serius dan membuat upaya diplomasi mempertahankan perairan Natuna lebih kuat dan terarah.

“Indonesia selama ini masih mengabaikan historical fishing rights Cina, sehingga Indonesia perlu lebih mendalami landasan dan alasan Cina untuk melakukan intervensi di Natuna. Diperlukan juga adanya opsi kesepakatan diantara kedua negara dimana kedua negara dapat bekerjasama dan memanfaatkan sumber daya secara bersamaan,” tutur Randy menutup paparannya.

Penulis : Denise Michelle

Penyunting : Angganararas Indriyosanti