State Control and Religion

You might find some stuff sensitive, don’t get offended.

Since last week, two newspapers my family subscribes have been putting articles on this organization called Gerakan Fajar Nusantara, or Gafatar for short. Previously, messages were broadcast on social media and chatting platform on the need of being aware of Gafatar’s presence and on people missing after being offered to join a pengajian (Koran reading) from its members. Then the time bomb exploded. Ex-Gafatar members, having had their organization dissolved, were evicted from their community’s ‘neighborhood’ in Mempawah, West Kalimantan by an angry mob. This ex-Gafatar community in Mempawah originated from different cities, particularly from the populous island of Java. They had gathered to form a community and engaged in communal farming. Their children, having dropped out from school in their own city of origin, did not continue school and have not gone to one ever since. As a replacement, Gafatar had run a home based school in each community, but ceased after the movement dismissed itself.

Tracing back a little, this movement (or organization) was said to be the successor of Al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyah, founded by Ahmad Mussadeq in 2000, who was then charged by the South Jakarta District Court for blasphemy after declaring himself a prophet. Al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyah was then changed to Gafatar in 2012. It received wide rejection, after the government ordered its disbandment with Home Ministerial Decree No. 220/2012 (Jakarta Post, January 28, 2016) before dissolving itself in August 2015.

What came up to me as problems are the mob-led eviction and government’s disbandment on Gafatar, but, with the authority experienced with terrorism and secession, the disbandment can be said the right measure taken by the elites. At the same time, I suppose democratic country should provide freedom to its people, including freedom to choose religion. But some legal instruments are contrary to this very basic principle, and this, in my opinion, is the root of the mob violence.

Getting straight to it, the Indonesian Constitution (UUD 1945) (I don’t know if it’s the correct term à) article 28E point (1) stipulates that “every citizen is free to choose his/her religion, …, choose his/her domicile in any area of the country and leave it … .” Article 28I point (1) stipulates that freedom to choose religion is part of human rights. Finally, Article 29 point (2) reads that the country will assure its people’s freedom to choose and practice their religion.

However, in reality the government was referring to something else more specific. Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PnPs/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama, or simply blasphemy ruled out freedom granted by the constitution. Article one of this law stipulates that there are only six religions in Indonesia: Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. Such regulation has engendered a sense of orthodoxy that is made by the government itself. Any other religion out of the official spectrum will be easily deemed sesat, murtad, or blasphemous by the government and by Indonesian society, made even easier with the existence of Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI, Council of Ulema of Indonesia). This is simply contrary to the freedom to choose religion, and at the end causing the rise of violence or even hate crimes towards not-approved-by-government religious groups. Such mob violence (usually carried out by government-approved religious groups) is not new. Ahmadiyah, Shi’ite Muslims, and Surga Eden sects, for example, have been the victims of orthodoxy socially formed by the legal instrument. And now the Gafatar, even when no longer existing.

It makes me wonder whether the government is serious enough in providing the people freedom to choose religion. It seems like they have turned into God’s envoy that they have listed religions permitted in heaven. This is somewhat different from the western countries. Even though some have turned islamophobic, they allow the presence of any religion even the weirdest ones, because it is understood that state can only negatively meddle on ensuring the freedom, not deciding which religions are available to their people.

But, Indonesia’s regulatory system is not much different from that of Russia where the government has instruments such as Council of Muftis and Central Ecclesiastical Administration of the Muslim of Russia. These two Islamic institutions, often contending each other, are meant to control the presence of Islam, keeping them apolitical while preventing other Islamic sects (such as Wahabbism) that are not in tune with traditional ethnic Islam in Russia, culturally wielded by the Tatars, Chechen, Bashkirs, Ingush, etc. The aim is to preserve state control, in the Russian case, on Islam in Russia. In Indonesia, MUI can be said to work for the same purpose, to preserve the “correct” Islam that the council can produce fatwa stating which religious group is sesat. Moreover, the government also has similar authority with Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PnPs/1965 through agreement between home minister, minister of religion, and attorney general (jaksa agung), hence the Home Minister Decree No. 220/2012. It is clear then that the Indonesia’s legal system towards religions is somewhat ambiguous, granting (limited) freedom while causing strong orthodoxy (that encourages the society to independently punish “wrong” religions faithful, especially their leaders as experienced by Mussadeq) for the sake of control and stability.

This ambiguity stemmed from the “obsession” of state’s control, but it turns out not without any clear reason: separatist religious-based movement. Indonesia has had similar experience to its Russian counterparts. Indonesia has seen the Negara Islam Indonesia (NII, is it the same as Darul Islam? I’m not sure :/) to the radical Muhajidin Indonesia Timur (MIT). The Russian administrations have seen the two Chechen wars and other radical Islamic movement in other regions. In the case of Gafatar, the pattern of transmigrating to a certain area, living in an exclusive community and engaging in communal farming, making its own education system, while potential new members could be bound to come along was of course worrying to the state authority, and that could be the rational reason for Gafatar to be disbanded, although it had not posed any threat of secession nor terror towards local residents.

I would conclude that maintaining stability is a must for every authority, sometimes at the expense of people’s freedom and basic civil rights. I cannot decide whether the government had to stop the blasphemy law from taking effects (who am I to decide anyway?). But hate crimes law would be favourable in protecting the rights of unapproved religions devotees. For now, Indonesia would stay this way, not a truly free country, not as free as we could be anywhere else.

Sources:

Jakarta Post(s)

Paper SSPI semester 2

Paper Rusia

Kehampaan malam

Hai

Hi there.

So this is my new blog. The posts are the same from my tumblr account, the one I used previously for writing such things and, you know, shallow opinions. Next on, I'll be using this account, because I think this kind of blog is more appropriate for my interest, politics rather than tumblr where romantic and girly posts predominates (although I found a cartoon politics account and follow it).

If you disagree with my thoughts, do not hesitate to comment.

Cheers.

Jakarta Terror and The Real Terror

It has been a while since the more-exciting-under-Sir-Alex Man United called off their trip to Indonesia in 2009, as JW Marriott and Ritz Carlton hotels were blown up by a terrorist attack within five minutes interval. The Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) was blamed for the devastation that they caused: 8 or 9 dead, over 50 injured, and tens of thousands Mancs supporters heartbroken.

3 days ago, another terrorist attack took place in the heart of Jakarta, where embassies and big western business are located. This time, it is not the JI, rather, the more notorious Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, IS, whatever you like). They even claimed responsibility of the terror. The November Paris attack style, or the barricade style, was brought into play by the 9 perpetrators equipped with bombs, guns, and rifles. Despite the lurking danger, people still gathered in what turned into battleground, with sate and mangoes offered like popcorn at movies. Some even took selfies.

(Had an impression for a moment that people might have thought it was another The Raid sequel in the making.)

Apart from that, we, the Indonesians, may have been used to terrorist attacks. I don’t see why not: Christmas day 2000, Bali 2002 and 2005, Jakarta 2003 and 2009, not to mention other unheralded attacks (with various methods of spreading terror) including the killing of Christian schoolgirls in 2006. It was always the JI and its successors responsible for the successful attacks. The radical organization have prevailed in Indonesia for a long time and had its roots from the Darul Islamiyah (DI) that had carried their cause to oust the secular government of Indonesia and build an Islamic state. The JI itself still wield the same objective.

Just for the record, I don’t put much attention to Middle Eastern politics and am not sure how wide a territory the IS want to acquire. But related to the Jakarta terror, for me it was just them emphasizing their ability to wreak havoc anywhere they want. Their main targets unchanged: western citizens/business, and maybe the security forces (police and army). This was also a chance to show the world how effective their recruitment process is, and that radicalization can brainwash anyone from any social background. But, the attack was minor, nothing more than just gertakan (or threat, can’t find better translation). The 9 perpetrators give an impression to me that they are rookies, low ranked, used to fight in the frontline (the first horde to get killed),and not very tactful with explosives. Some were thought to have failed when handling them, ended up blowing themselves up without hurting anybody else (if you watched the video where people say “Bunuh diri dia! Bunuh diri!” or stuff). I would say that IS has nothing to do with us Indonesians, although Indonesian Bahrun Naim was said to be the planner of the mayhem.

It is surprising how Indonesians, deemed the most tolerant Islamic nation in the world and renowned for the moderate Muslim citizens, can be radicalized and even go to fight in Syria. Around 800-1000 Southeast Asian are said to have gone to Syria, some have come home, some held and sent back by Turkish authorities. Like I said, in my opinion, the IS don’t have certain objective in Indonesia, but they have largely influenced the terrorist groups in Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries. This can be observed if we look at an example: the Abu Sayyaf Group of the Philippines recording videos in which they hold hostages and demand ransom. The same goes with Mujahidin Indonesia Timur (MIT) in Sulawesi led by Santoso, whose videos may be available on YouTube. But the case is different in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia.

Taking MIT as an example, not only is this radical group threatening the Republic’s government. As a break-off from Jemaah Islamiyah, this group has also terrorize the Sulawesi public by killing Christian schoolgirls and beheading Hindu trans-migrants, spreading sense of intolerance and fear. With MIT pledging bai’yat (I don’t know what it actually means but I guess it’s like ‘I’ll be on your side let’s fight together’) to IS, this will provide them resources needed to wage wars and atrocities, and will only make the MIT even more threatening.

Having waffling all of this (sorry if you think so), our threat is not from the far-away-yet-so-close-on-line Islamic State, but rather, the local extremist terrorist groups that appear trying to undermine Indonesia’s heterogeneous nature with sectarian and interreligious atrocities. Indonesia’s experience with GAM, OPM, RMS, and DI might be revived with the potential reemergence of terrorist groups such as JI and MIT, the most lethal ones, but with more radical Islamic aspects.

As regular citizens in the grassroots level, what we need to do is raising awareness of plural, multi-religious Indonesia. Amongst the Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia is the most successful in integrating multicultural society (into acknowledging themselves as Indonesian), as well as managing Islam (since the emergence of IS, only hundreds go to join them). Our reputation as Islamic as well as democratic country has already been tainted by these terrorist groups and other intolerant groups domestically, such as FPI (although they are pro-government and pro democracy). But we have been successful in defining ourselves as Indonesians, a heterogeneous homogeneity. The government should work on equitable development across the country to pre-empt emergence of other radical groups, while we can keep our awareness on our identity as Indonesians.

Sources:

http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/beyond-the-bombings-assessing-the-islamic-state-threat-in-southeast-asia/

http://www.indonesia-investments.com/business/risks/radical-islam/item245

and some wikipedia for some data hehehehe

Kita, Ilmu HI, dan KOMAHI: Sebuah Ajakan

Lupakan berbagai hiruk-pikuk di Fisipol hingga “euforia” suksesi KOMAHI sejenak. Mari duduk sambil memegang buku Dynamics of Diplomacy, atau buku tebal karya Pak Baylis, atau Indonesian Foreign Policy karya Michael Leifer. Tanyakan pada diri kita masing-masing: Siapa aku? Buat apa kuliah ilmu HI?

Jawaban yang kita berikan untuk pertanyaan pertama mungkin mirip. Jika digambar sebuah diagram venn, maka semua lingkaran akan saling berpotongan pada jawaban “mahasiswa ilmu HI.” Di pertanyaan kedua, jawaban pasti bervariasi: untuk jadi diplomat, aktivis, presiden, strategis, analis, jurnalis, bekerja di MNC, bekerja di NGO, dan sebagainya. Dari kebebasan untuk menentukan pilihan ini, tercipta pula kebebasan untuk memilih cara bagaimana kita harus mencapai tujuan itu, dan memang fokus pada berbagai urusan akademik seperti membuat review, paper, ikut berbagai seminar, dan lain-lain menjadi beberapa caranya. Memang hal-hal itulah yang menentukan IPS dan IPK kita nantinya. Makin banyak pengetahuan dan makin kritis kita, IPK kita juga akan meningkat dan akan semakin mendekatkan kita dengan apa yang kita inginkan. Hal-hal akademis memang penting. Tetapi, apakah itu yang akan terus kita lakukan di masa kuliah yang (biasanya) hanya empat tahun ini, yang secara teknis hanya empat bulan tiap semesternya dengan masih terpotong hari-hari libur? Apakah hanya itu makna dari semua kegiatan perkulihan ini: belajar giat untuk mencapai cita-cita?

Ada banyak definisi dari Ilmu Hubungan Internasional. Beberapa mengatakan bahwa ilmu hubungan internasional adalah hubungan diplomatik-strategis antarnegara dan berfokus pada isu-isu seperti perang dan konflik, atau kerjasama dan perdamaian (Brown & Ainley, 2005). Ilmu Hubungan Internasional juga diartikan sebagai ilmu yang mempelajari berbagai fenomena (kultural, ekonomi, politik, dan lain-lain) yang terjadi secara lintas batas negara, sebagai akibat dari globalisasi. Aktor-aktor di dalam hubungan internasional pun beragam: negara, IGO, NGO, MNC, hingga aktor individu. Namun, kita perlu pula melihat apa yang sebenarnya dilakukan oleh aktor-aktor ini.

Untuk apa negara terlibat dalam hubungan internasional? Karena negara bertugas untuk menyediakan lima nilai khusus, yaitu keamanan, kebebasan, ketertiban, keadilan, dan kesejahteraan (Jackson & Sorensen, 2013). Bayangkan saat seseorang tidak memiliki negara. Bagaimana ia akan memenuhi kebutuhan ekonominya, mendapatkan tunjangan pendidikan, kesehatan, hingga keamanan? Siapa yang melindungi suatu bangsa dari invasi bangsa lain? Negara. Dengan ‘perpanjangan tangan’ dalam bentuk kedutaan dan konsulat, suatu negara memenuhi dan melayani kepentingan warganya di negara lain.

Uni Eropa, suatu bentuk IGO, menetapkan pemenuhan hak asasi manusia dan demokratisasi sebagai syarat keanggotaan. Dengan visa Schengen, masyarakat Eropa dengan bebas berpindah tempat untuk memenuhi segala keperluannya di berbagai bidang.

Amnesty International, suatu NGO yang memperjuangkan HAM, melindungi hak ekspresi, hak wanita, menentang hukuman mati, menuntut kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan, dan menuntut akuntabilitas badan-badan usaha yang telah menyalahi HAM dengan cara online maupun offline, mengirimkan surat ke kantor-kantor pemerintah, demonstrasi (termasuk aksi mogok), danlobbying (Amnesty, 2013). Mantan presiden AS Jimmy Carter yang melakukantrack II diplomacy di Nikaragua demi menciptakan transisi pemerintahan yang damai di akhir dekade 1980. MNC pun, meskipun terdapat berbagai pandangan skeptis, ikut ambil andil dalam menyejahterakan masyarakat dunia dengan memperluas lapangan pekerjaan.

Memang, kajian ilmu politik sifatnya bebas nilai. Namun, suatu cabang ilmu pengetahuan pasti memiliki sisi normatif dari eksistensinya. Ilmu HI memberikan kita pengetahuan tentang bagaimana menghadapi perubahan karena globalisasi, bagaimana menyikapi konflik dan mencapai perdamaian, bagaimana mengentaskan kemiskinan dan ketimpangan Utara-Selatan, bagaimana cara memenuhi hak asasi manusia yang sifatnya universal bagi semua bangsa. Inilah kajian kita sebagai mahasiswa ilmu HI: apa dan bagaimana cara menciptakan keadaan yang kondusif dan mendukung bagi kelangsungan hidup manusia, di satu negara dan bahkan di seluruh negara di dunia; bagaimana politik dapat ditujukan untuk kepentingan dan kebaikan semua orang. Itulah juga yang dilakukan oleh aktor-aktor dalam hubungan internasional: berusaha menciptakan keadaan yang baik dan mendukung kehidupan manusia, melindungi masyarakat, menyejahterakannya, menghindarkannya dari konflik, dan sebagainya, terlepas dari sifat manusia yang haus kuasa. Para akademisi dalam ilmu HI juga terus melakukan pertemuan-pertemuan serta berbagai riset akademik untuk mengembangkan ilmu HI sehingga kemanfaatannya bisa dirasakan oleh semua orang. Itulah yang kita kaji dan, nantinya lakukan, sebagai mahasiswa HI. We are meant to deliver common good. Inilah kita, definisi keberadaan kita. Mahasiswa HI punya misi besar dalam menciptakan kebaikan bersama, bahkan untuk masyarakat dunia.

Pertanyaan yang muncul kemudian adalah, saat kita terjun ke dunia profesional, apakah suatu kedutaan dapat melindungi warga negaranya dengan membuat review buku A? Laporan memang penting dalam hal-hal administrasi, tetapi apakah suatu permasalahan dunia akan selesai dengan membaca buku, mengikuti isu-isu global, dan membuat review atau papertentangnya lalu diberikan kepada atasan? Kita mahasiswa HI, dan nantinya kita bertugas untuk memberikan keadaan yang dibutuhkan masyarakat dunia. Fakta inilah yang memberikan makna keadaan kita sebagai mahasiswa HI dan membuat kita spesial daripada hanya menyelesaikan kuliah dengan IPK tinggi.We are IR students and we are meant to deliver common good to everyone.

Perlu ditegaskan kembali bahwa untuk bisa menyediakan common good, dibutuhkan keahlian-keahlian berinteraksi, kemampuan berbicara dan mendengarkan, kemampuan membentuk konsesi, serta ide-ide kreatif dan keberanian untuk berinisiatif. Sayangnya semua hal ini tidak dapat diperoleh hanya dari kegiatan akademis di kelas maupun mengerjakan tugas. Oleh karena itulah, menyadari pentingnya tugas yang kita emban, jurusan ilmu HI memiliki Korps Mahasiswa Hubungan Internasional (KOMAHI), di mana mahasiswa HI (yang tidak hanya memiliki kemampuan akademis, melainkan juga dalam bisnis, olahraga, dan film, musik, pengembangan SDM, menulis, dan lain-lain) dapat menyalurkan minat-minatnya yang tidak secara khusus terkait dengan perkuliahan di kelas.

Jurusan Ilmu HI di UGM didirikan pada tahun 1957, yang berarti jurusan ini telah melewati periode-periode sulit di mana semua kegiatan warga negara dikontrol ketat oleh aparat pemerintah. Mahasiswa tidak dapat mengembangkan bakat dan minatnya, bahkan pemikirannya secara mandiri karena latar belakang menjaga stabilitas politik untuk perkembangan ekonomi. Di masa tersebut, mahasiswa dibunuh hak asasi manusia dan kebebasannya. Secara pribadi, aku tidak mengetahui secara pasti sejarah KOMAHI. Tetapi, yang pasti KOMAHI didirikan dengan perjuangan para mahasiswa HI UGM sebagai bagian dari Fisipol untuk meraih kebebasannya. Kita tidak tahu pasti, namun inilah KOMAHI. KOMAHI adalah bentuk kebebasan kita mahasiswa HI untuk berkarya dan menjadi berguna untuk masyarakat di sekitar, baik di lingkup jurusan, fakultas, maupun universitas. Inilah ekspresi kebebasan kita mahasiswa HI sehingga kita tidak tertinggal dalam hal pengembangan dan aktualisasi diri dibandingkan dengan jurusan-jurusan lainnya.

Dalam buku International Relations pada subbab Careers in International Relations, disebutkan bahwa “[p]ekerjaan dalam pemerintahan dan diplomasi menawarkan team players kesempatan untuk memengaruhi kebijakan (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2014).” Seperti telah disebutkan di atas, KOMAHI menawarkan keahlian-keahlian diplomasi, membuat konsesi, mendengarkan, dan pengembangan kreativitas bagi orang-orang yang hendak bekerja dalam tim. Hal inilah yang membuat KOMAHI sangat esensial bagi pengembangan diri kita yang nantinya akan bekerja bersama dalam tim di dunia profesional, baik untuk negara, organisasi internasional, ataupun sebagai akademisi.

Hal yang membuat KOMAHI menjadi berbeda adalah organisasi ini hanya akan bergerak dan berfungsi jika diurus oleh para mahasiswa yang memiliki tugas delivering common good untuk semua orang. Tanpa bermaksud menjadi eksklusif, KOMAHI adalah organisasi yang dijalankan oleh orang-orang terpilih dengan tugas yang besar bagi masyarakat dunia. KOMAHI dijalankan olehkita, mahasiswa ilmu HI.

Suatu organisasi tidak bermakna jika tidak memiliki tujuan. Maka, kita bisa melihat KOMAHI sebagai miniatur negara, atau miniatur organisasi internasional, yang bertujuan menyediakan segala kebutuhan dan memfasilitasi pengembangan diri rakyatnya, mahasiswa HI, dengan berbagai cara. Di sinilah tempat kita, mahasiswa HI berlatih menyediakan keadaan yang baik bagi masyarakat, tempat kita menjadi pemimpin dan memberi andil dalam perubahan ke arah yang lebih baik bagi masyarakat HI, tempat kitamenyalurkan aksi kita untuk melihat hal-hal yang kita inginkan, serta tempatkita menikmati kebebasan kita dalam keselarasan yang dibangun bersama. Inilah KOMAHI kita, mahasiswa HI yang punya misi luar biasa bagi dunia.

Beberapa orang memilih untuk meninggalkan suatu negara karena keadaan yang tak menguntungkan baginya, seperti warga Suriah yang meninggalkan negaranya menuju Eropa demi kehidupan yang lebih baik. Beberapa orang tidak puas dengan KOMAHI karena ketidaksesuaian yang ia lihat. Tetapi, perlu diingat bahwa KOMAHI hanyalah miniatur negara, di mana para “elite” masih bisa dijangkau, dan suara masing-masing individu pasti dapat didengar, asalkan ada niat kuat dari kedua pihak.  KOMAHI ini milik kita, dan masih belum terlambat untuk memperbaikinya, masih cukup waktu untuk mewujudkan apa yang kita inginkan, asalkan ketidakpuasan berwujud kalimat “ah KOMAHI itu begini, ah KOMAHI itu begitu” diganti dengan aksi positif seperti menyuarakan pendapat dan keinginan atau bahkan kritik yang membangun, atau mengambil momentum untuk menciptakan perubahan, misalnya dengan mengikuti rekrutmen, atau berpartisipasi dalam suksesi. Perubahan hanya akan terjadi karena aksi, bukan dengan meninggalkan dan melemparkan tanggung jawab kepada orang lain. Perubahan juga masih bisa diusahakan meskipun kita “bukan siapa-siapa.” KOMAHI adalah milik kita, hakkita, dan tanggung jawab kita. Kita boleh menuntut perubahan, namun akan lebih baik jika kita menjadi powerhouse bagi perubahan yang kita inginkan.

Sudah terlalu panjang tulisan ini, entah terbaca atau tidak. Di paragraf terakhir ini aku ingin mengajak kita semua, mahasiswa HI, untuk memberikan makna dan menghargai apa yang kita lakukan dan miliki sekarang, dan mewujudkannya dalam aksi. Seperti membongkar lemari baju dan menemukan pakaian lama yang masih bagus dan sangat layak pakai, KOMAHI mungkin terlupaka, namun masih tertera dalam daftar hak kita semua dan mencerminkan kebebasan yang patut kita nikmati bersama. Namaku akan tertera pada lembar suara pada 19-23 Oktober nanti. Tapi lupakan saja sejenak. Itu tidak penting karena di sini aku hanya orang biasa yang tak tahan melihat absennya inisiatif di lingkunganku, dan ini hal yang mungkin paling bisa kulakukan, mengingat aku bukan siapa-siapa. Siapapun yang akan menjadi ketua KOMAHI, bukan dia yang menjadikannya baik, melainkan kita semua, mahasiswa HI. Jika kita masih berkomplain dan bahkan meninggalkan KOMAHI karena adanya ketidaksesuaian, kita patut bertanya pada diri kita sendiri, masih (atau akan) pantaskah kita mengenakan korsa hitam itu. Mari memberikan makna bagi kita dan KOMAHI kita.

Perubahan dimulai dari aksi.

Kristian Oka Prasetyadi

Mahasiswa HI

Bukan siapa-siapa

Referensi (penting tapi tidak mengajarkan softskill)

Amnesty. (2013). Who We Are. Retrieved Oktober 14, 2015, from Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are

Brown, C., & Ainley, K. (2005). Understanding International Relations (3 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goldstein, J., & Pevehouse, J. (2014). International Relations. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. (2013). Pengantar Studi Hubungan Internasional(5 ed.). (D. Suryadipura, & P. Suyatiman, Penerj.) Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

EU going through the storm: Grexit and its implication

Next week and the days to come, we are going to see enormous changes on the European soil. To quote an opening cliché of students’ paperwork, European Union is indeed the most successful multilateral project in forming a supranational body: common foreign and security policy, regional parliament, common monetary policy, and most importantly single currency, the Euro. The ideal leading example of integration among nations. Yet EU countries are not without problems.

The changes I’ve mentioned above is undoubtedly related to Greece. This Sunday (5 July 2015) Greek Referendum will decide the fate of Greece and Europe, both economically and politically. At the final days of June, The Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who’s been in his tenure for (only) 6 months since January, abruptly left the negotiation table regarding a renewal of an existing bailout worth € 7.2 billion and, surprisingly, call for a referendum in which Greeks will have to choose whether or not they accept this bailout program, which means another austerity measure. In my opinion, as a sovereign country, this clearly reflects the Greece’s dependence on international aids, as it has received around € 240 billion in total of bailout fund since 2010. What makes everything different is that Tsipras comes from Syriza Party, which is, I would say, a Leftist party with a socialist tendency (pretty much different from his predecessors) whereas the rest of Eurozone members are liberals. Ideally and psychologically by Tsipras, being ruled by other nation-states is a kind of humiliation to the Greek nationalism (similar to Indonesia’s Soekarno jargon “Go to Hell with Your Aid”). Moreover, he called this austerity measure an extortion to the Greeks.

Receiving a bailout program with austerity measure, logically, is very simple: here’s more money you can borrow, cut your spending, pay more to the creditors. Yet in reality this has been problematic for Greece. The problem is nobody wants austerity. If we take a look at Greece’s economy policy, pensions and minimum wages are the main priority spending for Greeks. Greeks receive so much from the government, yet they tend to evade paying taxes. This shows the culture of Greeks, that is contradictory to that of the Germans. Having learned from the monetary crisis and inflation in the World Wars period, Germans tend to work hard, pay their taxes, and be discipline. This is why austerity measures formulated by Germany, meaning cutting pensions and minimum wages, caused unrest in Greece.

Going back to Tsipras leaving the negotiation table in the last minutes when, said Eurocrats, decision was almost reached, and that Greece has failed to pay the € 1.6 billion payment to IMF, a referendum is going to be held this Sunday, whether Greeks want another austerity measure in order to get this € 7.2 bn funds. If the winning vote is a Yes, there should be chance of continuing negotiation process for the betterment of Greece and its relation with Eurozone countries. Surprisingly, Tsipras urges the people to vote a No. But what is actually at stake is Greece has failed to fulfill the payment to IMF due on 30th June, and European leaders, especially “Mutti” Merkel has asserted that no negotiation held before the referendum. What’s more crucial is creditors (the Troika especially) have stated that the offer is no more on the table! So if the question to be voted on is about accepting the bailout and austerity, is it still legal? But politics are relentless. Referendum is still going to be held with this implication: a Yes would mean Greece staying in the Eurozone and ready for other negotiation along with the resignation of Alexis Tsipras and Yanis Varoufakis (Greece finance minister); a No would mean Greece out of the Eurozone or even the European Union and a potential strengthening ties of Greece and Russia. A No would mean so, as Eurocrats likes such as Jean-Claude Juncker and Francois Hollande have warned. As long as I have been concerned there is no clear rule that deals with EU exit in the treaties. So it would be up to a country, whether the people still want to be part of EU or not anymore. By the way, Alexis Tsipras is said to have sent a letter (after the failed negotiation) to the creditors, asking for (more) debt relief, but deemed too late.

On the side of the EU (or more precisely the Eurozone states), Greece’s exit would be manageable; the European leaders are relatively calm. This is reasonable as Greece’s economy accounts  for only 2% of the European economy. This is also a preemptive step taken to assure the market and keep the confidence that the economy would not be hampered. But still, when debts are not paid, the lending parties would be weaker economically.

Politically, Grexit would have implication on other member-states, relating to the EU/Eurozone ties. Greece is not the only one to suffer crisis, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland suffered such crisis, too, although almost nothing has been put on the news regarding this four member-states. A Greece exit could be psychologically contagious, and it is not impossible that unprecedentedly other member-states would follow Greece steps towards the exit door. In my opinion, this scenario would be more likely with the existence of far-right parties or movement in the member-states. Not only are they against Muslim migration, they could be anti-EU (Eurosceptical), too, as they have the view that integration weakens nation-states. this is logical that regionalism means giving up parts of the sovereignty. Some of this Eurosceptical parties are France’s National Front, UK’s UKIP, Hungary’s Jobbik, and so on. So do left-leaning parties, in which Syriza is to be included.

Talking about Russia, it is not clear if Russia would be happy to welcome Greece with open arms as its ally or it would rather have Greece stay in the EU. The ties between two countries have been crystal clear since Tsipras took office, as they agree the creation of pipeline as a path of Russia’s gas supply to Europe in the Turkish Stream Project, for the pipeline would cross the Turkish territory to end in Greece. Europe normally have its gas supply from Ukraine, but as Gazprom has stated that it is stopping the supply to Ukraine, this would be a problem for Europe. However, with the money about to come from the Turkish Stream Project, it would mean also that Russia has an ally in the EU and, as a result, will give more probability for the EU sanctions to be relieved or even lifted. So there is actually reasons of having Greece stay in the EU with the Yes vote, as it means a resignation of Tsipras and Varoufakis, and a bigger chance to “cut ties” between Greece and Russia.

So, is Greece worth keeping in the EU or not? Politics is about rational choice. What would be more important is preventing such crisis to happen again. But how? As already mentioned, the EU has common monetary policy among the member-states, proved by the existence of European Central Bank to set regulation concerning the Euro, how much money is circulating in these country, the interest rate, and so on. But every member-state has its own fiscal policy (how much they get from taxes and how much they spend). The absence of this fiscal-regulating body is, expert says, the cause of imbalance and crises in Europe. Thus, there is the need to have such body that have the authority to cut spending, tax collection mechanism, and other measure related to the fiscal policy. But this would also mean giving up even more sovereignty to the European Union, whereas sovereignty is a key and most substantial feature for a state to have. Are there ever any intention of building United States of Europe? That’s unlikely to me.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Future: Thoughts and Prediction

Whether or not you back it, we can feel the euphoria sweeping across the globe on and after 26 June 2015 when the Supreme Court of the US legalised same-sex marriage. The US, as the so-called leader of the world has placed itself as a leading example on advancing and putting more emphasis on the importance of human rights, while the right to marry and form family is always part of human rights, regardless of people’s sexual preferences. We can see now that this legal system has erased the differing lines between “opposite-sex marriage” and “same-sex marriage”: there is neither of it, there is only “marriage”; which reflects equality best. I myself view this as a success of putting the needs and will of human beings in the highest place of all, but I also have a hypothesis about what could happen next, some kind of prediction.

In my opinion, the legalisation of same-sex marriage in all 50 states of the USA is a big success of humanity. As a following effect of this law, human beings are regarded as human beings, respected, and viewed equally no matter of their sexual preferences. everyone can marry as they agree to live together on the basis of emotional bond, and has his/her relationship registered by the government. This is what same-sex couples have been seeking for. Like the “traditional” heterosexual couples, this law gives them access to form civil union, having their relationship protected legally. They also gain access to be protected by family law concerning adoption, tax breaks, child benefit, more allowance from the work place, and so on. These are the social benefits that can be obtained by a family on the ground of marriage. In Indonesia, it is equal to tunjangan anak (child allowance) and tunjangan istri (wife allowance) for a husband working as state employee or for the army (navy, air force, etc.). It shows that marriages can be equal. once again, sexual preference is a private sphere: one has his/her full right to decide with which gender one would like to be married with, and has the right to have their relationship protected legally and to obtain civil society benefits. Marriages can be equal, in case of civil society life.

However, if we look at the “traditional” definition and the essence of marriage, it was always the union of a man a woman who agree to live together in a (maybe) lifetime contract on the basis of emotional bond. And, what makes it essential is that this relationship is combined with the biological function of procreation/reproduction, which is (normally and unfortunately) only to be done by two people (in this context, a monogamous marriage) from different sexes (although marriage is not always the precondition for this function). Two people of opposite sexes committed to living together and have children, that is (or was) the essence and norms of marriage as smallest institutions in civil society. As an addition, marriage is essential because the family members have genetic relationship between generations. It’s true that in some cases, opposite sex couples may have this not working due to infertility or other dysfunctions, but the chance is usually little. This biological function does not work out for same-sex couples, but yes, they can always adopt children.

I believe that human beings are intelligent and always have alternative ways concerning this matter. If I am to deny the equality of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples on the ground of biological relations, one can refute with an alternative or two. If biological relations makes the family bond even stronger, then same-sex couples can have it, too (this view may still be hypothetical as debates going on in my mind). Gay couples might want to have a biological child that have genetic features like one of them, so they can have the service of a woman willing to do surrogacy. For lesbian couples, they may give birth to a biological child with the help of sperm obtained from sperm bank or a donor. What a time to be alive! people are equal to each other regardless of their backgrounds, and more importantly everyone can marry someone of any sex and live equally.

Apart from the good sides, we would also have our society and culture changed, or maybe they have. the culture and norms of marriage has shifted. As mentioned before, family consists of a husband and a wife, a father and a mother. With the number of married same-sex couples about to surge significantly in the US and other parts of the world, the view towards a family is about to change. I would say that a father and a mother are both essential and obligatory for a family, apart from the fact that there are single parents. A father and a mother is a must-have feature of a family. Along with the increasing number of same-sex couples, the value of a father and a mother will diminish: a father and a mother, that represent different genders (masculinity and femininity, which is significant, will turn into optional features of a family, rather than obligatory. It has always been said that gender is a social construct: a man can be masculine or feminine, and so can a woman, regardless of their biological feature the defines them as male or female. But can one of two father in a gay couple’s family replace this feminine role by a mother or the role of a father in a lesbian couple’s family? I may not know now but frankly, I think not. The norms of marriage will shift among the new generations: the social value of a father and a mother will diminish.

As I said, I have an hypothesis of what could happen later in the future. If same-sex couples were to gain equality even in biological matter of reproduction, surrogacy and sperm donor would be a business of huge advantage and profit, working as agents in the field of reproduction of younger generations. The younger generations in the future would live in opposite-sex couple families, gay-couple families, or lesbian-couple families. However, it is inevitable that they would eventually learn that a baby is born from sexual intercourse of two people of different sexes, which would be contradictory to the reality that they lived with two gay fathers or two lesbian mothers. They would eventually learn that they are born through surrogacy, which represent the reproduction function of a woman, or sperm donor, which represent that of a man. At this point, they would say that a father or a mother is not necessary in a family. There is a chance that a man or a woman would only be seen by some people for his or her reproduction capacity.

“I was born because a woman was willing to give birth for my dads.”

“I was born because a generous man was willing to be a sperm donor to one of my moms.”

A “man” and a “woman” (that can be “father” and “mother”) would only be seen as “male” and “female” due to their biological function for reproduction only. Then a question comes up to my mind: would being a father or a mother be still worth it anymore? 

This might not have happened yet, and might not happen in the future. But, just as homosexuality seen as disease back then, it is now a pride worth having. Things can change. A law can change culture, and culture change society. There is always a chance for anything to happen. People change, so does society. After all, are marriages really equal?

You may want to change my view, as I still do not know many things. I’d be glad to receive responses whether you agree or disagree.