PAST EVENTS

[RECAP] Beyond the Great Wall #8: China 2020: Traditional and Nontraditional Security Challenges

June 23, 2020/in News (English), Past Events/by iis.fisipol

Amidst the pandemic that demands self-quarantine and working from home, Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada managed to assemble the forum of Beyond the Great Wall #8 online through Google Meet on May 15, 2020. In its eighth edition, Beyond the Great Wall invited two speakers to discuss both traditional and nontraditional security challenges China is facing in 2020. Our first speaker Fadhil Sulaeman, who is currently serving as the Head of Research and Development for Student Association of Belt and Road Initiative (SABRI) UGM Chapter, delivered a presentation on the topic of “China’s Strategy in South China Sea”. Meanwhile, our second speaker Muhammad Reza, currently serving as a media analyst in PT Indonesia Indikator, addressed the topic of “China’s Medical Insurance System”. Also present in last Friday’s forum were Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, currently acting as the Head of International Relations Department of UGM as well as the convener of Beyond the Great Wall, and Lucke Haryo S. P., IIS UGM library staff, as moderator.

The forum starts with Fadhil explaining the importance of the South China Sea conflict. Three reasons exhibit this conflict’s significance: (1) the entrance of foreign vessels into Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone; (2) claims from Indonesia’s ASEAN neighbors on the conflict; (3) the involvement of the United States and China as important actors in international politics. South China Sea is a highly strategic territory due to abundance in natural resources, as well as its role as the main route for international trade. Furthermore, the disputed waters are infamous for various transnational crimes, ranging from trade of illegal goods to human and drug trafficking. Considering said strategic values of South China Sea, seven countries have put up overlapping claims on the territory. Fadhil pointed out three main islands on dispute, namely the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands, and the Scarborough Shoal. All three were of great significance to China’s interest, both in the ASEAN region and in international politics.

[layerslider id=”27″]

While describing the China-United States dynamics in the South China Sea conflict, Fadhil stated that confrontation between the two occurred as a result of different legal basis adopted to justify respective claims. The United States referred to Freedom of Navigation Operations as a result of international arbitration process, declaring South China Sea as international waters, resulting in freedom of movement and absence of obligation to report upon passage. On the other hand, China rejected the verdict and insisted on adhering to the principle of Innocent Passage. The principle implicates the obligation for vessels to report upon passage, as well as limited movement. Overlapping claims, combined with different stances on UNCLOS, made confrontation inevitable. However, China-United States confrontation has always been mere intimidation hitherto, i.e. Chinese and American vessels sailing in immediate vicinity of each other a while ago, and never resulted in an armed confrontation. Fadhil wrapped up his presentation with response to the question of whether the United States is bold enough to initiate physical confrontation with China.

“The United States is the only country capable of outdoing China’s naval force. However, escalating the conflict will present the United States as an aggressor. Hence, provocation and intimidation should be taken as solutions” Fadhil answered.

The second session focused on nontraditional security challenges China is facing in 2020, particularly in public health matters. Muhammad Reza began his presentation with an interesting fact: the Chinese government has only reformed its medical insurance system in 2015, relatively recent compared to Indonesia who launched its new insurance system in the first term of President Joko Widodo’s presidency. In order to improve its health services, China allocated 850 million yuan to support three types of insurance scheme: (1) the urban employment-based basic medical insurance, aimed for the working class living in cities; (2) urban resident medical insurance for children and students; (3) new rural cooperative medical scheme for rural residents. All types of subsidy apply for the entire Chinese population, except those in Macau and Hong Kong.

Reza made clear that although reformed, the Chinese medical insurance system is still flawed. The reimbursement rate for inpatient care facilities is still low and continues to decrease. Consequently, the government persistently attempts to refine its system, notably during the emergence of COVID-19 in China and its spread worldwide. Many parties view that the government’s approach in handling the spread of the virus is effective, covering lockdowns, strict supervision, as well as deployment of government intelligence agents and face recognition technology to track citizens. At the moment, the government is pursuing the development of artificial intelligence to prevent similar outbreaks in the future. Reza asserted that the significant budget will eventually be able to advance the system.

The forum is concluded with statements from Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro. Indonesia and the international community, according to Nur Rachmat, should not slack in keeping up with the issue of South China Sea despite the pandemic. Indonesia and ASEAN should not give in to China. In fact, Indonesia is under great obligation to ensure regional stability, particularly if China’s strategy threatens Indonesia’s straits. Meanwhile, in discussing China’s medical insurance system, Nur Rachmat affirmed that it is normal for China to have reformed its system only recently, followed by the ambition to develop artificial intelligence with an even larger budget than the United States’. Nur Rachmat argued that the employment of artificial intelligence by the Chinese government in the future will be massive, not only to tackle COVID-19, but also track its citizens.

Writer : Brigitta Kalina Tristani Hernawan

Editor : Medisita Febrina

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

May 29, 2020/in Past Events/by iis.fisipol

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

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

[layerslider id=”27″]

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

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

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

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

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

Penulis : Brigitta Kalina Tristani Hernawan

Penyunting : Medisita Febrina

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

March 17, 2020/in News (English), Past Events/by iis.fisipol

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

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

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

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

[layerslider id=”26″]

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

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

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

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

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

Writer: Denise Michelle
Translator: Medisita Febrina

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

March 16, 2020/in News, Past Events/by iis.fisipol

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

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

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

[layerslider id=”26″]

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

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

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

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

Penulis: Denise Michelle
Editor: Angganararas Indriyosanti

Globalization Talk #3 : Globalization Talk and Educating on Globalization

March 10, 2020/in News, News (English), Past Events/by iis.fisipol

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

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

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

[layerslider id=”24″]

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

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

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

Author : Raditya Bomantara

Editor : Handono Ega P.

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

March 10, 2020/in News, Past Events/by iis.fisipol

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

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

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

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

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

[layerslider id=”25″]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writer : Denise Michelle
Translator : Medisita Febrina

PAST EVENTS

Institute of International Studies

Contact Us

FOLLOW OUR ACTIVITIES!