Commentaries : Indonesia is Not a Free Speech Country as Jokowi Said It Is

On 29 June 2021, President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo asserted that Indonesia is a democratic country that champions free speech (Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia, 2021). The statement was given following the University of Indonesia’s Student Executive Body criticism of Jokowi, calling the President’ King of Lip Service.’ However, on Wednesday, 22 September 2021, Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment and Jokowi’s right-hand man, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, filed a police report against two human rights defenders, Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti, for defamation and libel by using the draconian Information and Electronic Transactions Law, along with a civil lawsuit asking for an IDR100 million compensation. Luhut’s decision contradicts President Jokowi’s statement and, alas, proved that Indonesia is not a free speech country as Jokowi assumed it is.

 

How We Get Here: A Chronology

On 12 August 2021, a coalition of civil society organizations, which includes the Fatia-led Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), published a report titled ‘The Political-Economy of Military Deployment in Papua.’ The report indicates a nexus between business operations, armed forces deployment, and conflict escalation in Papua. New police and military outposts were built around mining concessions, followed by the deployment of security personnel which, in turn, increased the number of violent conflicts in Intan Jaya Regency (KontraS, 2021). One of the companies involved is a gold mining company, Madinah Qurrata’ain Ltd. (PTMQ), a subsidiary of West Wits Mining (WWM).

In a project situated on the Derewo River, WWM yields thirty percent of its shares to Tobacom Del Mandiri Ltd. (TDM), a part of the Toba Sejahtera Group Ltd., with Luhut being one of the minority shareholders of Toba Sejahtera Group. On 20 August 2021, Haris, the Executive Director of Lokataru Law and Human Rights Office, invited Fatia as a guest speaker to his YouTube channel and discussed the report. On that occasion, Fatia mentioned that there is an indication that Luhut is involved in the business-military operations in Papua by virtue of his role as a minority shareholder of Toba Sejahtera Group.

On 26 August 2021, through his attorney, Juniver Girsang, Luhut subpoenaed Haris and Fatia. In the subpoena, Luhut asked Haris and Fatia to apologize for attacking Luhut’s reputation, character assassination, and spreading false news, and guarantee that in the future, they will not re-offend Luhut (Koalisi Bersihkan Indonesia, 2021). Luhut also threatened Haris and Fatia that if they fail to fulfill Luhut’s demands, further legal actions will be taken against them. However, both Haris and Fatia refused to apologize. Instead, they responded by emphasizing that the term used to describe Luhut’s involvement in the business-military operations in Papua, i.e., ‘indication,’ does not amount to character assassination, as declared by Luhut. Further, Haris and Fatia requested Luhut to counter their claims by providing more data and being more transparent about Luhut’s potential involvement, as suggested in the report.

Unsatisfied, Luhut sent another subpoena on 2 September 2021 before filing a police report today.

 

What Went Wrong: A Rights-Based Analysis

Luhut’s moves not only contradict Jokowi’s but also Indonesia’s commitment to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression. As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Indonesia is legally bound to respect, protect, and fulfill freedom of expression stipulated under Article 19. The operationalization of Article 19 is further enshrined under General Comment 34.

For instance, General Comment 34 acknowledges that public officials are legitimate subjects for criticism (United Nations, 2011). As policy-makers with almost unlimited resources at their disposal, public scrutiny serves as a means of check-and-balance to keep a tight rein on how the State is governed and, consequently, must be guaranteed. Therefore, “the mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties (United Nations, 2011).”

Furthermore, under General Comment 34, all laws regarding defamation and the protection of the honor of public officials could potentially undermine freedom of expression and, subsequently, are incompatible with Article 19 of the ICCPR (United Nations, 2011). Hence, the Articles used by Luhut to charge Haris and Fatia, e.g., Article 27(3) (on the distribution of contents of affront) of the amended Information and Electronic Transactions Law and Articles 310 (on defamation) and 311 (on calumny) of the Criminal Code, should not be used due to their potential to create a climate of fear amongst citizens to exercise free speech (JPNN, 2021).

Indeed, Article 19 of the ICCPR allows for the limitation of freedom of expression. Nevertheless, such a restriction must follow two strict tests of necessity and proportionality, which Luhut failed to comply with (United Nations, 2011). The subpoena and the police report were unnecessary because Haris’ and Fatia’s criticism was aimed at a public official and based on research. The reasons for the former were already mentioned in the previous paragraphs. However, the rationales for the latter are more philosophical: research could only uncover truth partially. It is a way to verify the absolute truth. Suppose every study, due to its inability to unravel the holistic truth, would be criminalized. How many people will suffer from such practices and end up incapable of exercising their right to participate in academic activities or freely express their opinion?

Luhut also went overboard with the subpoena and the police report because they could harm Haris’ and Fatia’s mental and physical integrity. The harassment, intimidation, and stigmatization, as well as the potential of arrest, trial, or imprisonment, could be avoided had Luhut decided to answer Haris’ and Fatia’s criticism with data and transparency rather than criminalizing them.

 

How It Ought to Be: A Call to Action

Shreds of evidence have shown that Luhut’s decision to subpoenaed and filed a police report against two human rights defenders, Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti, was groundless, uncalled for, and disproportionate. As such, I call upon the readers to urge:

  1. President Joko Widodo to ensure the respect, protection, and fulfillment of human rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression;
  2. Coordinating Minister Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan to withdraw the police report and respond to the claims made by Haris and Fatia by providing more data and transparency; and
  3. Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Regional Police to dismiss Luhut’s report.

 

Reference 

Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia. (2021). Criticism is Form of Freedom of Expression, President Jokowi Says. Retrieved on September 23, 2021, from https://setkab.go.id/en/criticism-is-form-of-freedom-of-expression-president-jokowi-says/

JPNN. (2021). Ini Alasan Luhut Menyeret Haris Azhar & Fatia ke Polisi. Retrieved on September 23, 2021, from https://www.jpnn.com/news/ini-alasan-luhut-menyeret-haris-azhar-fatia-ke-polisi?page=3

Koalisi Bersihkan Indonesia. (2021). PEJABAT KOK SUKA SOMASI WARGA [Internal note].

KontraS. (2021). Ekonomi-Politik Penempatan Militer di Papua: Kasus Intan Jaya. Retrieved on September 23, 2021, from https://kontras.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/FA-LAPORAN-PAPEDA-SPREAD.pdf

United Nations. (2011). General Comment No. 34. Retrieved on September 23, 2021, from https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf


Writer : Aldo Kaligis

Commentaries : Signifikansi Traktat Pelarangan Senjata Nuklir bagi Perdamaian Dunia dan Urgensi Indonesia

Traktat Pelarangan Senjata Nuklir (Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons/TPNW) pertama kali diadopsi pada tahun 7 Juli 2017 untuk menjawab kebutuhan akan sebuah instrumen hukum yang dapat mengatur kepemilikan dan pengembangan senjata nuklir bagi negara-negara anggotanya. Berangkat dari kekhawatiran akan terulangnya tragedi kemanusiaan Hiroshima dan Nagasaki di tanggal 6 dan 9 Agustus 1945, TPNW diharapkan dapat menghentikan segala aktivitas yang berhubungan dengan senjata nuklir dan bermuara pada pemusnahan secara total.

Cara TPNW Bekerja

TPNW memiliki karakter yang unik jika dibandingkan dengan konvensi-konvensi pengaturan senjata nuklir yang telah ada sebelumnya, seperti Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) dan konvensi tentang kawasan bebas-nuklir lainnya. Traktat ini tidak hanya melarang pengembangan, uji coba, pertukaran, penggunaan, dan penyimpanan senjata nuklir bagi negara anggota, tapi juga melarang mereka untuk menjadi ‘host’ bagi negara lain untuk melakukan aktivitas serupa. Selain itu, TPNW juga mengatur kewajiban negara membantu korban yang disebabkan oleh aktivitas nuklir, termasuk di antaranya memberi jaminan kesehatan, psikologis, dan tunjangan ekonomi. 

Secara teknis, negara-negara dapat memilih untuk menghilangkan kepemilikan dan keterlibatan mereka dalam aktivitas senjata nuklir sebelum meratifikasi TPNW atau secara berangsur dan konsisten mengurangi aktivitas tersebut dalam kurun waktu yang telah disepakati. Setelah negara-negara tersebut berhasil melucuti fasilitas senjata nuklirnya, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) akan memberlakukan pengamanan ketat guna menjamin benar-benar tidak ada lagi fasilitas yang tersisa untuk digunakan di masa depan.

Secara prinsip, TPNW bekerja dengan cara kolektif melalui pemberian stigma pada senjata nuklir dan pihak-pihak yang melakukan aktivitas terkait. Sejarah menunjukkan bahwa senjata-senjata yang telah mendapat larangan seiring berjalannya waktu akan semakin kehilangan status politisnya – membuat kebutuhan akan senjata tersebut semakin menurun, perusahaan persenjataan semakin sulit mendapat bantuan dana untuk pengadaan senjata nuklir, dan para investor juga harus berpikir ulang untuk berinvestasi pada sektor tersebut karena ada reputasi baik yang menjadi taruhan. Dalam jangka panjang, berkurangnya signifikansi kepemilikan senjata nuklir secara global dapat mewujudkan cita-cita diciptakannya TPNW, yakni pemusnahan total senjata nuklir yang mengancam perdamaian dunia.

Sifat kolektif TPNW tidak hanya terletak pada stigmatisasi senjata nuklir, tapi juga pada efektivitas pemberlakuannya. TPNW hanya dapat secara hukum mengikat negara-negara yang telah melakukan ratifikasi, terlepas traktat itu sendiri telah resmi berlaku sejak tanggal 21 Januari 2021. Sehingga, meskipun terhitung hari ini (9/8/2021) sudah ada 55 negara yang meratifikasi, butir-butir perjanjian yang termuat di dalam TPNW belum bisa berlaku secara menyeluruh. Hal inilah yang kemudian mendorong urgensi diratifikasinya TPNW oleh lebih banyak negara, terutama mereka yang memiliki kapasitas senjata nuklir yang besar dan secara aktif mengembangkannya, seperti Amerika Serikat, Rusia, Cina, Perancis, dan Inggris. 

Namun, bukan berarti dukungan dari negara-negara yang tidak memiliki kapasitas serupa tidaklah penting. Senjata nuklir merupakan bencana yang dapat menimpa semua pihak tanpa diskriminasi. Dampak yang disebabkan oleh senjata nuklir tidak hanya memilih mereka yang mengibarkan perang, tapi juga mencakup rakyat sipil yang tidak bersalah dan lingkungan untuk jangka waktu yang panjang. Kompetisi pengembangan senjata nuklir juga mengakibatkan senjata ini semakin diminati sebagai strategi pertahanan negara – seperti yang pernah diungkapkan oleh PM Inggris, Boris Johnson, ketika mengumumkan keputusan untuk menambah hulu ledak nuklir Inggris. Sehingga, bukan tidak mungkin senjata ini akan diluncurkan jika perang terjadi di masa depan. Bukankah sejarah sudah membuktikannya?

Di samping itu, dukungan secara masif dari berbagai negara dapat menguatkan relevansi dari nilai-nilai yang terkandung dalam TPNW. Negara yang sebelumnya percaya bahwa senjata nuklir merupakan solusi pertahanan yang baik dapat berubah pikiran setelah menyaksikan banyaknya negara yang memutuskan untuk meratifikasi TPNW. Bukan hanya sekedar tidak lagi melihat senjata nuklir sebagai solusi, negara-negara ini juga dapat berempati kepada pihak-pihak yang ingin bebas dari momok tersebut dan merasa turut bertanggung jawab atas kemaslahatan orang banyak.  Hal ini terbukti saat Perancis dan Cina bergabung ke dalam Non-Proliferation Treaty setelah beberapa dekade sebelumnya menunjukkan pertentangan.

Peran Indonesia

Indonesia tidaklah terkecuali. Indonesia merupakan salah satu saksi sejarah dan bagian dari sekelompok negara yang paling awal membubuhkan tanda tangan untuk TPNW pada tanggal 20 September 2017. Namun, hingga saat ini tindakan tersebut belum dilanjutkan oleh ratifikasi. 

Pelucutan senjata nuklir seharusnya menjadi salah satu perhatian dan komponen penting dari politik luar negeri Indonesia yang seyogianya diikuti dengan tindakan nyata, yakni ratifikasi. Ratifikasi oleh Indonesia memiliki nilai dan pengaruh yang sangat signifikan bagi TPNW – meskipun saat ini Indonesia belum memiliki kapasitas senjata nuklir. Indonesia merupakan negara dengan populasi terbesar ke-4 di dunia dengan jumlah populasi sebanyak 260 juta jiwa. Jika diakumulasikan dengan total 1,08 miliar warga yang dinaungi oleh 55 negara peratifikasi TPNW lainnya, maka buah ratifikasi Indonesia dapat melindungi 1,34 miliar manusia dari ancaman perang nuklir di masa depan. 

Indonesia juga terlibat aktif dalam berbagai organisasi internasional bergengsi, termasuk di antaranya G20 dan Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFEZ). Bergabungnya Indonesia ke dalam TPNW dapat mempengaruhi negara-negara lain untuk turut mengambil langkah serupa. Sebagai anggota SEANWFEZ sendiri, ratifikasi TPNW dapat dilihat sebagai upaya perluasan global dari tujuan awal dibentuknya organisasi tersebut, yakni mewujudkan Asia Tenggara sebagai kawasan bebas nuklir. Terlebih, jika dilihat dari perspektif keamanan, Indonesia bukanlah negara yang dapat duduk tenang bila penggunaan senjata nuklir menjadi lumrah di masa depan. Indonesia rawan akan konflik perbatasan serta aktivitas kejahatan transnasional. Alam Indonesia yang luas dan kaya juga akan sangat terdampak oleh segala bentuk aktivitas senjata nuklir.

Pada hakikatnya, meratifikasi TPNW bukanlah sekedar tentang kewajiban Indonesia untuk menjaga ketertiban dunia dan perdamaian abadi seperti yang telah diamanatkan oleh konstitusi UUD 1945, tapi juga merupakan bentuk tuntutan akan hak seluruh warga negara atas ruang hidup yang aman dan bebas dari ancaman eksistensial hingga generasi-generasi yang akan datang.

Referensi

 

Booth, W. (2021). Boris Johnson’s vision for post-brexit ‘Global Britain’ includes more nuclear weapons. Washington Post. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/world/americas/nuclear-weapons-prohibition-treaty.html

 

Gladstone, R. (2020). Treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons passes important threshold. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/world/americas/nuclear-weapons-prohibition-treaty.html

 

How the treaty works. (2021). ICAN. https://www.icanw.org/how_the_tpnw_works

 

Lovold, M. (2021). Why does the nuclear ban treaty matter. International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/why-nuclear-ban-treaty-matters

 

Marin-Bosch, M.  A nuclear weapons-free world: is it achievable? United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/nuclear-weapons-free-world-it-achievable


Penulis : Cut Intan Auliannisa Isma

Commentaries : Bayang-Bayang Ancaman Senjata Nuklir 76 tahun setelah Pengeboman Hiroshima dan Nagasaki

Dilansir dari studi yang dilaksanakan oleh Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), terhitung awal tahun 2021, ada sekitar 13.080 senjata nuklir di dunia. Jumlah ini merupakan akumulasi dari kepemilikan senjata nuklir oleh 9 negara, baik negara yang memiliki senjata nuklir secara sah (nuclear weapons states), yakni kelima negara anggota tetap Dewan Keamanan (DK) PBB, maupun yang tidak sah (states with nuclear weapons) seperti India, Pakistan, Israel dan Korea Utara. Walaupun jumlah ini merupakan sebuah penurunan dari awal tahun 2020, terdapat peningkatan jumlah senjata nuklir yang saat ini dikerahkan dengan kekuatan operasional dari 3.720 hingga 3.825 (Global Nuclear Arsenals Grow as States Continue to Modernize, 2021). Sekitar 2.000 diantaranya yang merupakan milik Rusia atau Amerika Serikat masih disiagakan dan dapat setiap saat digunakan. Jumlah yang tidak sedikit ini merupakan sebuah peringatan bahwa ancaman senjata nuklir masih membayang-bayangi dunia, 76 tahun setelah pengeboman Hiroshima dan Nagasaki. 

Pengembangan yang dilakukan oleh negara-negara pemilik senjata nuklir juga dapat dilihat dari penambahan arsenal dan peningkatan kualitas senjata nuklir mereka. Tiongkok baru-baru ini dilaporkan telah secara berangsur meningkatkan ukuran dan mendiversifikasikan komposisi arsenal nuklir mereka (China, 2021). Hal ini menambah kekhawatiran akan stabilitas dan keamanan internasional. Selain itu, mengacu Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy yang dirilis pada bulan Maret 2021, Inggris melaporkan bahwa mereka memutuskan untuk meningkatkan jumlah persediaan hulu ledak nuklir sebanyak 260. Inggris menyatakan keputusan ini dilakukan karena kekhawatiran atas meningkatnya ancaman kontemporer, khususnya persaingan global dan proliferasi teknologi baru. Langkah yang dilakukan Inggris merupakan kemunduran dari janji Inggris pada tahun 2010 untuk mengurangi persediaan menjadi di bawah 180 pada pertengahan 2020. 

Ketegangan geopolitik yang muncul antara negara-negara pemilik senjata nuklir juga dapat berperan pada meningkatnya ancaman senjata nuklir. Sebagai contoh, hubungan bilateral Amerika Serikat dan Rusia yang bersitegang, membuat kedua kepala negara tidak ragu untuk menggunakan senjata nuklir mereka apabila kepentingannya terganggu. Walaupun pada Juni 2021 ini Presiden Putin dan Presiden Biden telah setuju bahwa “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought (perang nuklir tidak dapat dimenangkan dan oleh karena itu tidak boleh sampai dilakukan),” setahun lalu ketegangan kedua negara memunculkan narasi bahwa penggunaan senjata nuklir sangat memungkinkan. Mengamati kejadian ini, CEO NTI Ernest J. Moniz dan mantan senator Sam Nunn berpendapat bahwa “Not since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis has the risk of a U.S-Russian confrontation involving the use of nuclear weapons been as high as it is today (konfrontasi antara AS dan Rusia berkaitan dengan senjata nuklir tidak pernah setinggi hari ini sejak krisis misil Kuba pada tahun 1962).” 

Kekhawatiran terhadap ancaman senjata nuklir juga didorong oleh kurangnya transparansi beberapa negara pemilik senjata nuklir. SIPRI memaparkan bahwa ketersediaan informasi tentang status persenjataan nuklir yang dapat dipercaya antara negara-negara pemilik senjata nuklir bervariasi. AS dan Inggris telah mengeluarkan cukup banyak informasi mengenai kemampuan nuklir mereka masing-masing. Sama seperti AS dan Inggris, Prancis juga melaporkan beberapa informasi penting mereka. Rusia menolak untuk membagi informasi persenjataan nuklir mereka secara terbuka, walaupun ada indikasi bahwa Rusia mengabarkan beberapa informasi ini kepada AS. Studi SIPRI juga menunjukkan bahwa Tiongkok lebih terbuka dalam melaporkan kekuatan persenjataan nuklir mereka dibandingkan beberapa tahun lalu, meskipun tidak diimbangi dengan informasi mengenai rencana pengembangannya di masa depan yang masih sangat sedikit. India dan Pakistan telah membuat pernyataan tentang uji coba rudal mereka, namun informasi tentang status atau ukuran persenjataan nuklir yang dimiliki tetap dirahasiakan. Sama seperti India dan Pakistan, Korea Utara juga mengakui uji coba rudal dan senjata nuklir telah dilaksanakan, namun tidak memberikan informasi mengenai kapasitas senjata nuklir mereka. Sesuai dengan kebijakan lamanya, Israel hingga saat ini tidak mengomentari persenjataan nuklir mereka. Kurangnya transparansi dari negara-negara pemilik senjata nuklir dan tidak terprediksinya ketegangan geopolitik yang mungkin muncul, berperan terhadap meningkatnya rasa takut akan munculnya perang nuklir lain. 

Peristiwa Hiroshima dan Nagasaki yang menewaskan sekitar 129.000 hingga 226.000 orang yang kebanyakan adalah warga sipil merupakan pengingat betapa destruktif dan berbahayanya perang nuklir. Harapan para warga sipil bergantung pada rasionalitas kepala negara untuk terus mengingat dampak dari perang nuklir dan menahan diri untuk menggunakan senjata nuklir yang dimiliki sebagai senjata perang. Akan tetapi kekhawatiran muncul di tahun 2018 silam ketika Donald Trump yang saat itu masih menjabat sebagai presiden AS, tidak ragu melontarkan ancaman untuk menyerang negara lain dengan senjata nuklirnya. Trump menanggapi pernyataan pemimpin Korea Utara –Kim Jong Un – bahwa “[the] Nuclear Button is always on my table (Tombol Nuklir selalu berada di atas meja saya), dengan cuitan “…I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger and more powerful than his, and my Button works! (Saya juga memiliki Tombol Nuklir, yang lebih besar dan lebih kuat dari miliknya, dan Tombol saya bekerja).” Tidak ragunya kepala negara dalam melontarkan ancaman untuk menggunakan Tombol Nuklir mereka dan memulai perang nuklir di abad ke 21, terus mengingatkan bahwa selama senjata nuklir masih ada dan terus dikembangkan maka dunia masih berada dibawah ancaman perang nuklir.

Studi survei yang dilaksanakan oleh International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) terhadap lebih dari 16.000 generasi milenial (responden berumur antara 20-35) di 16 negara yang dibagi menjadi negara yang mengalami perang atau konflik dan negara yang tidak, menunjukkan bahwa kekhawatiran akan pecahnya perang nuklir masih membayangi generasi milenial. Menurut hasil studi yang bertajuk Millennials on War, 54% responden meyakini bahwa senjata nuklir masih akan digunakan sebagai alat perang dalam 10 tahun ke depan. Mayoritas responden (84%) menunjukkan oposisi mereka terhadap penggunaan senjata nuklir dalam keadaan apapun. Sekitar 64% responden setuju bahwa negara-negara pemilik senjata nuklir harus mengeliminasi senjata nuklir mereka, dan 59% responden setuju bahwa negara yang tidak memiliki senjata nuklir tidak perlu memilikinya. 

Referensi

Biden and Putin agree: “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” (2021). DW. https://www.dw.com/en/biden-and-putin-agree-nuclear-war-cannot-be-won-and-must-never-be-fought/a-57921072

China. (2021). NTI. https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/

Global Britain in a competitive age: The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy. (2021). HM Government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969402/The_Integrated_Review_of_Security__Defence__Development_and_Foreign_Policy.pdf

Global nuclear arsenals grow as states continue to modernize. (2021). Stockholm International Peace Research. https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2021/global-nuclear-arsenals-grow-states-continue-modernize-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now

Løvold, M. (2020). Lessons from the ICRC’s Millennials on War Survey for Communication and Advocacy on Nuclear Weapons. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 3(2), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2020.1859216

Millennials on War. (2020). International Committee of the Red Cross.

Moniz, E. J., & Nunn, S. (2019). The Return of Doomsday: The New Nuclear Arms Race -and How Washington and Moscow Can Stop It. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2019-08-06/return-doomsday

SIPRI Yearbook 2019. (2019). https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2019/06

Trump to Kim: My nuclear button is “bigger and more powerful.” (2018). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42549687

United Kingdom. (2021). NTI. https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/united-kingdom/


Penulis : Nabilah Nur Abiyanti

Commentaries : Belajar dari Tragedi Kemanusiaan Hiroshima dan Nagasaki

Senjata nuklir adalah senjata pemusnah massal yang memiliki dampak paling dahsyat dibandingkan dengan senjata-senjata pemusnah massal yang lain. Senjata ini memiliki daya ledak yang sangat besar dan memberikan dampak yang sangat menghancurkan serta mematikan bagi umat manusia dan lingkungan sekitar. Seperti akibat dari ledakan bom nuklir di Hiroshima dan Nagasaki yang dapat meluluh-lantakan sebuah kota, menghancurkan bangunan, merusak lingkungan sekitar, serta menimbulkan korban jiwa dan luka-luka. Dampak senjata nuklir bahkan dapat terus memberikan pengaruh jangka panjang kepada umat manusia maupun lingkungan alam di area tersebut. Ironisnya senjata nuklir adalah satu-satunya senjata pemusnah massal dan tidak manusiawi yang memiliki status legal sampai diadopsinya Perjanjian Pelarangan Senjata Nuklir (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW) tahun 2017.

Sepanjang sejarah, senjata nuklir baru digunakan dalam pertempuran antara kekuatan Sekutu melawan kekuatan Poros pada Perang Dunia Kedua. Pada pagi hari, di tanggal 6 Agustus 1945, pesawat Enola Gay yang diterbangkan oleh pilot bernama Paul W. Tibbets melintasi kota Hiroshima dan menjatuhkan sebuah bom atom ke pusat kota industri yang padat penduduk tersebut. Hasilnya adalah kehancuran yang masif. Mengutip dari ICAN, bom atom yang dijatuhkan tersebut memiliki daya ledak setara dengan 15.000 ton TNT, menyebabkan 140.000 penduduk meninggal di akhir tahun 1945, dan 70 persen bangunan rata dengan tanah. Sementara data dari Pemerintah Kota Hiroshima menyebutkan sebanyak 320.000 warga terdampak, di antaranya 118.000 warga meninggal pada hari itu juga. Pada waktu itu, penduduk Hiroshima berjumlah sekitar 350.000 jiwa. 

Tiga hari kemudian, pasukan Amerika Serikat kembali menjatuhkan bom atom yang bernama “Fat Boy” ke kota Nagasaki yang berjarak 410 kilometer dari kota Hiroshima dan mengakibatkan sekitar 74.000 warga sipil meninggal dunia serta menghancurkan berbagai bangunan dan infrastruktur kota. Berbagai sumber melaporkan bahwa hanya dalam hitungan detik, sebuah ledakan bom atom dapat menyebabkan terbentuknya awan menyerupai kubah jamur setinggi 13 kilometer menjulang ke udara kota Hiroshima dan Nagasaki. Sesudahnya, gelombang panas menyapu kota menyebabkan kebakaran dan diikuti hujan abu yang mengguyur seluruh kota.

Seorang saksi bernama Tsutomu Yamaguchi ingat betul betapa mengerikan kejadian di hari itu. Mengutip dari dw.com, pagi itu Yamaguchi dalam perjalanan ke tempat kerja, tiba-tiba dia melihat sambaran kilat yang sangat menyilaukan dan kemudian terdengar ledakan yang sangat dahsyat. Ia mengalami luka bakar yang parah dan menyaksikan situasi di sekitarnya yang sangat kacau. Gedung perkantoran, rumah, jembatan dan bangunan lainnya hancur berantakan, membuat kota industri Hiroshima hampir rata tanah dan korban dengan luka bakar yang mengerikan bergelimpangan. Pengalaman serupa juga disampaikan oleh para hibakusha, sebutan bagi para korban selamat yang terdampak efek bom atom Hiroshima dan Nagasaki, diantaranya Matsushima Keijiro, Ogura Keiko, Takahashi Akihiro, dan beberapa lainnya. 

Yamaguchi merupakan seorang hibakusha yang unik, karena mengalami dua kali peristiwa pengeboman dua kota di negeri Sakura itu. Tidak menyangka akan adanya petaka serupa, mengutip dari Deutsche Welle (DW), Yamaguchi memutuskan kembali ke kampung halaman di Nagasaki pada tanggal 8 Agustus 1945 dimana keesokan harinya pasukan Amerika Serikat kembali menjatuhkan bom atom di kota kelahirannya. Lagi, dia mengalami secara langsung kejadian mengerikan dalam sejarah hidupnya, bahkan dalam sejarah umat manusia di seluruh dunia. 

Tidak selesai di hari itu saja, ledakan bom di Hiroshima dan Nagasaki juga menyisakan berbagai penderitaan bagi hibakusha untuk jangka waktu yang lama. Paparan radiasi yang disebarkan menimbulkan penyakit-penyakit seperti kanker, leukimia, kerusakan organ, risiko keguguran tinggi, dan dampak psikologis berkepanjangan yang harus ditanggung oleh para penyintas. Dampak radiasi internal dari nuklir ini juga menjadi indikator yang diakui oleh Kementerian Kesehatan Jepang untuk menjadi basis pemberian kompensasi kepada para penyintas. Selain itu, para hibakusha juga harus mengalami diskriminasi sosial seumur hidupnya akibat stigma sebagai pembawa gen cacat dan penyakit. Selama berpuluh tahun, para hibakusha kesulitan untuk mencari pasangan dan diterima di lingkungan pekerjaan layaknya warga Jepang biasa.

Laporan dari Economic Stabilization Board di tahun 1949 juga menunjukkan kerugian ekonomi yang cukup fantastis akibat peristiwa tersebut. Kerugian yang ditimbulkan oleh kerusakan bangunan, infrastruktur, jalan, dan fasilitas komunikasi di Hiroshima dan Nagasaki mencapai total $17.682.000 (kurs 1947: 1 dolar AS/50 yen). Besaran ini belum termasuk biaya rehabilitasi kota, bantuan sosial bagi korban, dan pemulihan lingkungan. Dampak yang ditimbulkan terhadap lingkungan tidaklah main-main. Radiasi dari bom atom menyebabkan pencemaran bagi lahan dan hasil pertanian, perikanan, dan air bersih yang menjadi konsumsi sehari-hari tidak hanya oleh warga Hiroshima dan Nagasaki, tapi juga mencakup wilayah-wilayah lain di sekitarnya. Radiasi ini menempel selama bertahun-tahun lamanya, menyebabkan kelangkaan sumber pangan lokal yang layak dikonsumsi.

Untuk mengenang sekaligus selalu mengingatkan masyarakat Jepang dan juga masyarakat global, maka pemerintah Jepang mendirikan 2 buah museum. Jika anda mengunjungi kota Hiroshima, Jepang, maka anda akan menemukan Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, di mana terdapat sebuah monumen peringatan peristiwa peledakan bom atom yang terjadi di kota tersebut 76 tahun yang lalu. Terdapat satu bangunan bernama Gembaku Dome, satu-satunya gedung yang masih tersisa hingga hari ini, menjadi saksi biru peristiwa memilukan di kota industri yang cukup maju di Jepang pada masanya. Sedangkan di kota Nagasaki didirikan Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. Kedua Museum ini menyimpan sisa-sisa reruntuhan, foto, dan dokumen penting lainnya yang menghadirkan realita di masa kelam itu.

Belajar dari peristiwa di dua kota bersejarah di Jepang, penggunaan senjata nuklir di masa mendatang sama sekali tidak dapat dibenarkan secara moral dan kemanusiaan. Dampak yang ditimbulkannya tidak dapat memenuhi dua prinsip utama dari Hukum Humaniter Internasional, yaitu prinsip pembedaan dan prinsip proporsionalitas. Saat senjata nuklir diledakkan, maka akibat dari ledakan itu tidak dapat membedakan siapa atau apa objek yang akan terkena dampaknya, apakah dia pihak dan objek militer atau sipil. Peristiwa Hiroshima dan Nagasaki menunjukkan bahwa 90 persen korban adalah penduduk sipil yang seharusnya merupakan pihak-pihak yang wajib dilindungi dalam situasi apapun, bahkan dalam situasi perang. Begitupun, ledakan bom nuklir tersebut tidak dapat memilih hanya akan menyasar target militer, karena terbukti sebagian besar gedung dan infrastruktur sipil rusak dan hancur akibat pengeboman tersebut.

Penggunaan senjata nuklir di dua kota ini juga memberi pelajaran berharga bagaimana penggunaannya telah memberikan dampak yang tidak proporsional untuk mencapai tujuan militer yang sah. Dampak pengeboman tersebut telah menyebabkan kesakitan yang luar biasa dan tidak perlu, telah menghilangkan korban nyawa yang sangat masif, dan korban harta benda yang tak ternilai. Dampaknya pun tidak hanya dirasakan pada saat itu, tetapi terus berlanjut hingga puluhan tahun setelahnya. 

Lebih dari tujuh dasawarsa sejak bom atom dijatuhkan di Hiroshima dan Nagasaki, derita kemanusiaan yang ditimbulkannya masih dirasakan dan mengusik rasa kemanusiaan kita. Tetapi, kesadaran untuk menghapuskan ancaman kemanusiaan tersebut dari muka bumi ternyata masih jauh dari harapan. Umat manusia masih hidup dalam bayang-bayang ancaman kepunahan dengan hampir 15.000 bom nuklir yang ada di dunia ini. Hadirnya Traktat Pelarangan Senjata Nuklir pada tahun 2017 memberi secercah harapan bahwa dunia yang bebas dari bayang-bayang senjata nuklir bukan sebuah ilusi, sekalipun untuk mencapainya bukan perjalanan yang pendek dan mudah.

Peristiwa Hiroshima dan Nagasaki memberi peringatan kepada kita untuk jangan pernah mengulang petaka kemanusiaan ini. Penting untuk meresapi secara mendalam, satu pesan penting yang tertulis di dekat Bel Perdamaian di Museum Hiroshima, ”We dedicate this bell as a symbol of Hiroshima Aspiration. Let all nuclear arms and wars be gone, and the nations live in true peace!” Pesan ini semestinya menyadarkan kita akan urgensi pelarangan senjata dan perang nuklir agar umat manusia dapat hidup dalam perdamaian yang hakiki.

Referensi

Bugnion, Francois. (1995). “Remembering Hiroshima. International Review of the Red Cross, No. 306. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/57jmge.htm

Higan-No-Kai, Hiroshima. (1964). Hiroshima Peace Bell. https://travel.gaijinpot.com/hiroshima-peace-bell/

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings. (2021). ICAN. https://www.icanw.org/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_bombings

Hiroshima’s Path to Reconstruction. (2015). Hiroshima Prefecture and The City of Hiroshima.

Kisah Tsutomu Yamaguchi Selamat dari Bom Atom Hiroshima dan Nagasaki. (2020).

https://www.dw.com/id/tsutomu-yamaguchi-selamat-dari-bom-hiroshima-dan-nagasaki/a-54463122

Naono, Akino (2019). “The Origins of ‘Hibakusha’ as a Scientific and Political Classification of the Survivor”. Japanese Studies 39(3): 333-352.

Rothman, L. (2017). After the Bomb: Survivors of the Atomic Blast in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Share Their Stories. TIME. https://time.com/after-the-bomb/

Solomon, F. & Marston, R.  (1986). The Medical Implications of Nuclear War. National Academy of Sciences. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/940.html


Penulis : Ririn Tri Nurhayati

Commentaries : Jalan Terjal Menuju Dunia Bebas Senjata Nuklir

Bencana yang diakibatkan oleh ledakan bom atom yang dijatuhkan di Hiroshima dan Nagasaki pada tanggal 6 dan 9 Agustus untuk menghentikan perang di Pasifik adalah sebuah tragedi besar dalam sejarah umat manusia. Korban jiwa, skala kerusakan serta dampak yang ditimbulkan oleh ledakan senjata nuklir tersebut seolah membangunkan masyarakat internasional dari mimpi buruk dan mendorong tekad untuk memusnahkan senjata tersebut. Seruan untuk menghapuskan sepenuhnya senjata nuklir serta untuk mendirikan sebuah badan untuk menangani senjata nuklir menjadi resolusi pertama yang dikeluarkan oleh Majelis Umum PBB setelah lembaga dunia tersebut didirikan.

Tetapi, tekad untuk menyelamatkan umat manusia dari kehancuran ternyata tidak cukup kuat untuk membebaskan dunia dari senjata nuklir. Terbukti, resolusi PBB untuk menghapuskan senjata nuklir tidak menghalangi negara-negara besar untuk mengembangkan senjata nuklir mereka. Tiga tahun setelah resolusi PBB dikeluarkan, Uni Soviet melakukan uji coba senjata nuklirnya di  Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan dan menjadi negara kedua yang memiliki senjata nuklir. Inggris menyusul Uni Soviet dengan melakukan uji coba senjata nuklir di Australia pada tahun 1952, diikuti oleh Perancis di Pasifik Selatan tahun 1960 dan Cina di Provinsi Sinkiang pada tahun 1962. Praktis kelima negara anggota tetap Dewan Keamanan PBB identik dengan negara-negara yang memiliki senjata nuklir.

Kekhawatiran akan munculnya persaingan dalam pengembangan senjata nuklir mendorong munculnya upaya-upaya untuk membatasi uji coba senjata nuklir seperti Perjanjian Antartika 1959 yang melarang uji coba nuklir maupun penimbunan limbah radioaktif di Antartika maupun Perjanjian Uji Coba Nuklir Parsial 1963 yang melarang uji coba nuklir di atmosfer, luar angkasa dan di bawah air. Sementara itu, berbagai protes terhadap pengembangan senjata nuklir mulai bermunculan. Di tengah-tengah meningkatnya persaingan Timur-Barat, sekelompok ilmuwan ternama yang dipelopori oleh Albert Einstein dan Bertrand Russell mengeluarkan manifesto yang mengingatkan akan bahaya perang nuklir dan mendesak semua negara untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan secara damai. Demonstrasi-demonstrasi menentang senjata nuklir juga berlangsung di berbagai negara. Pada tahun 1958 terbentuk Kampanye untuk Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament dengan simbol CND, yang sekarang dikenal sebagai simbol perdamaian.

Upaya internasional untuk mencegah penyebaran senjata nuklir dengan visi untuk akhirnya menghapuskannya muncul dalam bentuk Perjanjian Non Proliferasi Nuklir atau NPT (Treaty on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation) tahun 1968. Perjanjian ini ditopang oleh 3 pilar yakni non proliferasi, perlucutan senjata, dan penggunaan energi nuklir untuk tujuan-tujuan damai. Melalui NPT, negara-negara yang hingga tahun 1968 belum melakukan uji coba senjata nuklir, dilarang mengembangkan atau memiliki senjata nuklir, sementara kelima negara yang telah melakukannya, berhak memiliki senjata nuklir meski tetap harus menunjukkan itikad untuk menghapuskannya. 

Sebagai sebuah rezim nuklir internasional, NPT relatif efektif untuk mencegah pengembangan atau kepemilikan senjata nuklir oleh lebih banyak negara, meskipun gagal menghalangi negara-negara tertentu seperti Israel, India, Pakistan dan Korea Utara. Sebagian negara-negara ini tidak menandatangani NPT. Disamping itu,  negara-negara pemilik senjata nuklir juga tidak pernah menunjukkan komitmen atau itikad baiknya untuk secara bertahap mengurangi dan akhirnya menghapuskan senjata nuklir dari doktrin pertahanan mereka. Berbagai negosiasi perlucutan senjata yang dilakukan cenderung lebih dimaksudkan untuk menjamin keseimbangan kepemilikan senjata nuklir daripada mengurangi, apalagi menghapuskannya.

Konsekuensinya, sampai saat ini, hampir 15 ribu hulu ledak nuklir masih mengancam dan membayangi masa depan umat manusia, lebih dari 75 tahun sejak masyarakat internasional bertekad untuk menghapuskannya. Bahkan terdapat kecenderungan ancaman senjata nuklir semakin riil dan tidak lagi merupakan kemustahilan (lihat tulisan-tulisan berikutnya).

Diadopsinya Perjanjian Internasional Pelarangan Senjata Nuklir (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons) yang dikenal dengan TPNW pada tahun 2017 menjadi harapan baru bagi umat manusia untuk hidup tanpa dibayangi ancaman senjata nuklir. TPNW bukan terminal terakhir dari upaya untuk mencapai dunia bebas dari senjata nuklir. Sebaliknya, TPNW merupakan awal dari perjalanan yang mungkin masih akan sangat panjang bagi terwujudnya dunia bebas senjata nuklir. Tetapi perjalanan harus dimulai. Bisa jadi, kita tidak akan menikmati dunia yang kita angankan itu, tetapi tidak berlebihan rasanya untuk berharap agar anak cucu kita yang akan hidup lebih damai bebas dari bayang-bayang ancaman senjata nuklir.

 

Referensi

 

Dowling, S. (2017). The monster atomic bomb that was too big to use. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170816-the-monster-atomic-bomb-that-was-too-big-to-use

 

From misplaced emblem in London to iconic – the UN General Assembly across 70 years. (2016). United Nations. https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/01/519682-feature-misplaced-emblem-london-iconic-hall-un-general-assembly-across-70-years

 

People’s history of CND – demonstrators in Trafalgar Square in 1959. Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. https://cnduk.org/peoples-history-of-cnd-demonstrators-in-trafalgar-square-1959/

 

SIPRI Yearbook 2021. (2021). Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2021


Writer : Muhadi Sugiono

It’s Time to Rethink Jakarta’s Water Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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


Writer : Marwa

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti

The Striking Generational Divide, Explained

Generational “finger-pointing” is not a novel concept and has existed for centuries within multitude of generations, each blaming the other for issues and ideas neither generation wants to take accountability for.  Both Gen Y (people born between the years 1980-1994) and Gen Z (people born between the years 1995-2010) have formed an alliance to push back on the older generations, specifically the Baby Boomers. A clash of ideas and a point of difference of views on society has struck tension between generations, preventing a progressive society from fully forming.

The younger generation is racially diverse, environmentally and socially conscious, and have a clear vision for how they want their future to unfold (Valencia-Garcia 2020). However, it is apparent that the ideas of the younger generations contrast sharply with older generations, who tend to reject policy reforms or ideas presented by the youth. A difference in “expectations of the future, ethics and politics” (Birnstengel 2019) has formed a generational split and prevents society from progressing entirely. The generational divide is not only based on family morals and ethics but is also an accumulation of different people living fundamentally different lives and experiencing different circumstances in general. Technology and politics are two key factors that have continually evolved through generations and have influenced generation’s perspective on society deeply (Birnstengel 2019).

Today, the debate on generationalism is centered around how a nation should look and exactly what kinds of people should be a part of that nation. Millennials and Gen Z have been defined by the rise of the internet and identity politics. They grew up with the internet, but also remember a life in analogue (Frey 2020). They have experienced economic crises and watched the War on Terror unfold, and as a result are concerned for their futures due to the large influence capitalist and traditionalist institutions still have on society (Valencia-Garcia 2020). Older generations are wanting to protect these outdated institutions that uphold their own old-fashioned values in order to push their agendas on the nation. Pew Research centre research found that the upcoming younger generation was the most ethically and racially diverse generation to date, fundamentally driving their progressive attitudes (Birnstengel 2019).

A distinct issue that has caused great generational divide is the climate crisis. Younger people across the world have grown up with more exposure to the effects of climate change than the older generations (Cohen 2019). Thus, young adults in current day are of higher concern about climate change as they understand the implications better and are more educated on the topic. The attitudes of younger generations and their beliefs has pushed an agenda to resolve the climate crisis dramatically, creating very real social change that is being reflected in policy changes around the world (Cohen 2019). Although the impacts of climate change are ever present and should be dealt with immediately, the push for policy change around the environment is a reflection of the youth’s priorities for society. Along with climate change, issues such as racial justice and social inclusivity are other examples of younger generations pushing important issues.

Older generations accuse younger generations of naivety and younger generations don’t understand their parochialism. Potentially, a middle ground could be met where older generations feel their needs are being fulfilled while society continues to progress as a whole. However, generational gaps will continue to arise if unity is not formed or perceptions do not alter to accommodate for one another

 

REFERENCES:

Birnstengel, G 2019, Boomer Blaming, Finger Pointing and The Generational Divide, Forbes, retrieved February 2 2021

Cohen, S 2019, The Age Gap in Environmental Politics, Earth Institute, Columbia University, retrieved February 2 2021

Frey, W 2020, The 2020s can end America’s generational divide in politics, Brookings, retrieved February 2 2021

Valencia-Garcia, L 2020, Understanding Today’s Generational Divide, Fair Observer, retrieved February 2 2021


Writer : Emily Camilleri

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti

Military Coup 2021 and the Stalemate of Democratization Process in Myanmar

The dream of becoming a fully democratic country is perhaps still a long way off for people in Myanmar. A coup or a seizure of power by the military has occurred, marking a sign of stalemate in the democratization process in Myanmar for the last decade. On February 1st, 2021, local news outlets and various international media reported that Aung San Suu Kyi as the state counselor and Myanmar’s de facto leader had been detained by the Myanmar military (Regan, Olarn, and Westcott, 2021). Not only Aung San Suu Kyi, President Win Myint, the leader of the government, and several other government officials have also been detained. In addition, the military also declared a state of emergency and took over power for at least the next year (DW, 2021).

 The military claims that the arrests are related to an alleged fraud in November 2020 election. In the election, The National League for Democracy, a political party led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won a significant victory by obtaining 396 out of 476 seats in the combined lower and upper houses of Parliament. This victory is certainly a threat in itself, at least in terms military’s guaranteed 25% parliamentary seats (Shine OO, 2021).  Although currently the conflict is still limited to the elite level, the impact of this struggle for power has begun to  spread towards citizen of Myanmar with the broadcast disruptions of the Myanmar National TV station and Myanmar National Radio. It was also reported that there was internet network disruption in the capital Yangon on Tuesday morning with network connections dropping by 75 percent (DW, 2021).

The democratic crisis that occurred in Myanmar received strong reactions from various international actors. The United States threatened to take action and ensure that Myanmar’s military would get consequences if they did not comply with democratic principles. UN Secretary General Antonio Gutieress also criticized the incident, saying that it was a serious blow for Myanmar democracy. Various criticisms have also come from international humanitarian organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that have been calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and denounced access to communications and internet networks (Al Jazeera, 2021).

Myanmar’s Pseudo Democratization Process

This recent event is certainly a major stumbling block for the struggle towards democracy in Myanmar. Optimism for the creation of a democratic civilian government must now be confronted with the existence of the military which has again shown its influence in Myanmar’s political struggle of power. Whereas, after the political reforms carried out by President U Thein Sein which was marked by changing the mode of government from a total military junta to a hybrid civil-military administration in 2011, optimism for the new face of democracy in Myanmar was getting bigger, both domestically and internationally. With various concessions granted in 2011 including commitment to democratic elections and loosening media control, political spaces that have been controlled by the military were becoming an open contestation for civilians to take part in politics. The peak was in 2015 when the National League of Democracy won the election with a significant number of votes. As a result, the NLD effectively took state legislative power from the military backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and officially granted the reins of executive power to civilians (Ko, 2018).

Although it appears that there has been a marked development in the democratic process after the election of civilian leaders through democratic elections in 2015, the reality is that the democratic process in Myanmar is far from being successful and completed. It even tends to appear as pseudo democratization. The point of pseudo-democratization here is that although on the surface there was a power transition from military to civilian, there has never been any attempt to reduce military power either in any level of the government. In the 2008 constitution, which is still in effect today, for example, the military is automatically guaranteed to get 25 percent of seats in the Myanmar parliament. The same constitution also states that every legislative decision must get at least 75 percent of the members of the Myanmar parliament. With the automatic allotment of 25 percent of seats for the military, it means that all forms of Myanmar legislative decisions must be approved by the Military faction in parliament to fulfil the minimum requirement of 75 percent, and the Military has the opportunity to veto all decisions discussed in the legislative process (Miclat, 2020). Moreover, the 2008 constitution also gives the Military control to key ministries such as the ministry of defense, the ministry of border affairs, and the ministry of home affairs (Turner, 2011). In addition, the military still has a strong influence on Myanmar’s bureaucracy where 90 percent of public officials and 80 percent of ambassadors are ex-military personnel, so that a more democratic political climate will be difficult to create (Ko, 2018).

To further understand the democratization process in Myanmar, we must also look at the history of the political reforms that took place in 2011. Although during that period President Thein Sein received a lot of praise from international community for his decision to encourage political liberalization that has reduced repression and created avenues for civil participation in the institutions, the main motive of the reforms is still being debated. As summarized by Bunte and Dosch (2015), political scientists see that political reform carried out by Myanmar was a “survival strategy of the quasi-military government” to overcome the danger of factionalism and to increase regime durability by creating power-sharing institutions. Several other political scientists said that this strategy was a military effort to increase Myanmar’s legitimacy in the international world as well as to improve Myanmar’s worrying socio-political conditions with international sanctions and the post-Cyclone Nargis recovery conditions that ravaged the country in 2008 (Bunte and Dosch, 2015).

By looking from the history of the democratization process in Myanmar especially related to the 2011 event, we can conclude that in fact this political reform is the result of generosity from the previous military government, therefore it is very likely that one day the military government will take back the “gift” if something does not go according to their expectations. Moreover, the bureaucratic climate in fact, which is still controlled by many military elements, will certainly make it easier for the military to mobilize its strength to take over power in the future. In contrast to other countries, for example, such as Indonesia, which demilitarized post-reform political elements in 1998 by eliminating military dual function, efforts to reduce military influence in Myanmar politics were minimal, as evidenced by the persistence of the tight military control on the aspects of Myanmar’s political life both in the legislative sector with a 25 percent military quota in parliament, as well as the quota of three important ministries in the executive sphere, namely the Ministry of Defense which has authority over Myanmar Armed Forces, Ministry of Border Affairs which controls border affairs of the country, the Ministry of Home Affairs which is in charge of administrative affairs and control of the police, narrows the space for civil society in political affairs in the country so that their resistance to political crises such as a coup became very vulnerable (Prameswaran, 2020).

From this event we can see that this military coup is an attempt by the Myanmar military to take back what they consider to be their right – full power and influence in all aspects of the life of the Myanmar people – as well as preventing the possibility of developing an external power that can rival their existence. The NLD’s landslide victory in the Myanmar elections, as well as the decline in the votes obtained by the USDP as the party backed by the military (The Irrawady, 2020), certainly is a big enough blow to the military’s existence so that they must take certain steps to maintain their power by carrying out a forced takeover of power and alleging that election fraud has occurred.

For Myanmar’s civil society, they do not have much choice but to wait for the situation to subside and hope that political stability in their country can be quickly upheld. The absence of Aung San Suu Kyi and several other civilian political figures who were detained by the military would have been a major blow to the struggle of civil society because so far they have relied on Aung San Suu Kyi as a political mouthpiece for the majority of Myanmar civil society. The strong control in every aspect of society as well as the fear of persecution, intimidation, and the silencing of freedom of speech which was marked by the shutdown of television, radio and internet broadcasts in Myanmar became an obstacle to civil society’s resistance efforts to the political crisis that was happening on their homeland.

What Myanmar Coup 2021 means for the international community?

With the limited number of actions that civil society groups can take in Myanmar, there are currently great hopes placed on the international community to be able to take certain steps to save the democratic process in that country. Criticism has already been made, but of course this will not be enough without being accompanied by firm steps that will put great pressure on the existence of military forces in Myanmar.

The biggest challenge faced by the United States as a country that has been committed to promoting and ensuring the smooth running of the democratization process around the world. Moreover, this event is the first challenge for the new government under President Joe Biden who was appointed at the beginning of the year. After the resignation of Donald Trump, who tends to have an inward looking policy, the United States is currently required to show its hegemony as a leading country, especially in the democratization process which has been their commitment. But of course these steps will not be that easy. In Myanmar’s affairs, America must face China, which has a big interest in the country, especially in the economic sector related to oil and natural gas. In contrast to the United States, which immediately gave a strong reaction, China prefers to be more careful in responding to this case while calling on the warring parties to resolve the political crisis with a peaceful manner (Wintour, 2021).

ASEAN as a regional organization and the countries that are members of it, especially Brunei Darussalam, which has just been entrusted with the ASEAN Chairmanship starting January 1, 2021 also faced the challenge of being able to help resolve this political crisis. Even though there is the principle of non-interference that must be upheld, however, ASEAN countries must be able to play an active role in efforts to prevent potential conflicts. For example, ASEAN as an organization as well as certain ASEAN countries must be able to encourage and facilitate peaceful discussions between conflicting parties if needed. In this case ASEAN is required to be able to create a just, democratic, harmonious and gender-sensitive environment in accordance with the principles of democracy, good governance and the rule of law in accordance with ASEAN Vision 2025. But this will not be an easy thing for ASEAN. In fact, shortly after the event there were various reactions from its member countries. Brunei as chairman of ASEAN, followed by various countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore through an official statement, has raised their concern and urged that this issue can be resolved peacefully in accordance with applicable legal principles. Even so, several countries including Cambodia and Thailand chose not to comment further and considered that this matter was an internal Myanmar affair and they considered that they had no right to interfere either in the ASEAN framework or in the bilateral framework. It will be difficult for ASEAN to think of a multilateral framework that can help resolve this crisis if its members are not in one voice in responding to this issue.

Historically, pressure from the international community has proven to be able to push for policy reforms that are considered de facto starting the democratization process in Myanmar in 2011. In the current  situation, when the people of Myanmar are again facing a political crisis caused by the excessive display of political power from the military, the role of the international community in giving pressure to the military action in Myanmar will be crucial in ensuring the political stability and the sustainability of the democratization process in Myanmar.

 

References

 

Al Jazeera. (2021). ‘Serious Blow to Democracy’: World Condemns Myanmar Military Coup. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/1/world-reacts-to-military-coup-in-myanmar

Bünte, M., & Dosch, J. (2015). Myanmar: Political Reforms and the Recalibration of External Relations. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 34(2), 3-19.

Channel News Asia. (2021). ASEAN Chair Brunei Calls for ‘Dialogue, Reconciliation and Return to Normalcy’ in Myanmar. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/myanmar-asean-aung-san-suu-kyi-military-coup-14087150

Deutsche Welle. (2021). Myanmar Coup: Aung San Suu Kyi Detained as Military Seizes Power. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/myanmar-coup-aung-san-suu-kyi-detained-as-military-seizes-power/a-56400678

Helen Regan, Kocha Olarn, & Westcott, B. (2021). Myanmar’s Military Seizes Power in Coup after Detaining Leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Ruling Party Politicians. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/31/world/myanmar-aung-san-suu-kyi-detained-intl/index.html

Irrawaddy, T. (2020). Myanmar’s 2020 General Election Results in Numbers. Election 2020. Retrieved from https://www.irrawaddy.com/elections/myanmars-2020-general-election-results-numbers.html?fbclid=IwAR0uo7ZdreRaaGyiJ-nnXdvJqbhgYcD-pTOcT0KKGqTQerFoBHiNHwFOexk

Ko, A. K. (2018). Democratisation in Myanmar: Glue or Gloss? Retrieved from https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=3d07eb88-d4f1-de81-40d1-032ec67a3cb8&groupId=288143

Miclat, G. (2020). Challenges to Democracy and Hopes for Peace and Justice in Myanmar. The Debate. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/challenges-to-democracy-and-hopes-for-peace-and-justice-in-myanmar/

Oo, A. S. (2021). Myanmar Military Denies Coup Threats over Vote Fraud Claims. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/constitutions-myanmar-elections-asia-min-aung-hlaing-1d8af462424d818f96e88dc6ed115dc1

Parameswaran, P. (2020). What Will Myanmar’s New Home Minister Mean for the Country’s Security and Politics? ASEAN Beat. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/what-will-myanmars-new-home-minister-mean-for-the-countrys-security-and-politics/

Turnell, S. (2012). Myanmar in 2011: Confounding Expectations. Asian Survey, 52(1), 157-164.

Wintour, P. (2021). Myanmar Coup: US and China Divided in Response to Army Takeover. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/01/myanmar-coup-us-and-china-divided-in-response-to-army-takeover-aung-san-suu-kyi


Writer : Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti