GLOBALISASI EKONOMI ABAD-21: SEBUAH KRITIK TERHADAP MARXISME

Luke Pramudita

Abstraksi
Memandang Marxisme sebagai sebuah ideologi dalam dunia ekonomi-politik internasional adalah suatu keharusan mengingat pemikiran Marx yang sempat mencuat dalam periode pasca Perang Dunia I dan Perang Dingin. Dalam dua masa ini ideologi Marxis muncul dan dikenal setelah berdirinya negara-negara berhaluan sosialis-komunis di kawasan Eropa. Marxis kemudian diidentikkan dengan sosialis komunis. Namun setelah runtuhnya kekuatan Uni Soviet pasca Perang Dingin satu persatu tahta sosialis-komunis dunia runtuh seiring masuknya dunia ke dalam sistem unipolar yang dipimpin Amerika Serikat dengan pemikiran liberalnya. Dalam fase ini penetrasi pemikiran liberal masuk kedalam ideologi dunia dan berkembang dalam aspek ekonomi yang bermuatan kapitalis. Sekarang ini dunia tengah masuk ke dalam fase multipolar dimana seluruh dunia memandang fase ini sebagai globalisasi. Kapitalisme liberal yang muncul pada fase sebelumnya turut diusung dalam fase ini dan sistem kapitalisme dunia semakin berjaya. Konsep Marx pun dipertanyakan, “Bagaimana dengan konsep masyarakat dunia yang sosialis?”

Pendahuluan
Berbicara mengenai Marxisme alam pikiran kita akan langsung dibawa kepada negara-negara berhaluan sosialis-komunis seperti Cina, Korea Utara, Vietnam, Kuba, negara-negara eks Uni Soviet (yang kemudian pecah menjadi 14 negara republik), dan eks Jerman Timur. Paradigma ini telah tersusun begitu kuat hingga kita akan selalu berpikir bahwa Marxis adalah paham mengenai sosialis-komunis. Apakah memang benar realitanya demikian?

Ideologi Marxis tidak disangkal lagi memang sangat berkaitan dengan paradigma sosialis-komunis, akan tetapi Marxisme bukanlah paham yang 100% sosialis-komunis seperti yang kita bayangkan. Ada sebuah pencampuradukan makna yang seringkali membuat kerancuan antara pengertian Marxisme yang sebenarnya dengan paham sosialis-komunis. Menurut Franz Magnis Suseno istilah ’Marxisme’ tidak sama dengan ’komunisme’. Komunisme (dalam hal ini komunisme internasional) adalah gerakan dan kekuatan politik partai-partai komunis yang menjadi kekuatan politis dan ideologis internasional di bawah pimpinan W.I.Lenin. Ajaran komunis Lenin ini merupakan ideologi resmi komunisme dunia (selanjutnya disebut ideologi Marxisme-Leninisme) dan Marxisme hanyalah salah satu komponen dalam komunisme yang dikenal selama ini (Suseno, 1999). Kaum komunis memang selalu mengklaim interpretasi atas ajaran Marx sebagai ideologi mereka agar dipandang sebagai pewaris sah ajaran Marx ini. Istilah komunisme sendiri sebelum disahkan oleh Lenin sebagai paham komunisnya ternyata telah ada di dalam masyarakat jauh sebelum digaungkan oleh Lenin. Komunisme merupakan suatu cita-cita utopis masyarakat dimana segala hak milik pribadi dihapus dan semuanya dimiliki bersama.

Jadi seperti apakah sebenarnya Marxisme itu? Secara praktis dan ringkas pemikiran Karl Marx sebenarnya muncul dikarenakan adanya eksploitasi dari kaum borjuis terhadap kaum proletar dalam suatu proses produksi sebagai akibat dari adanya sistem kapitalisme (Woodfin, 2008). Sistem kapitalisme awal yang dimaksud disini adalah kapitalisme pada masa setelah revolusi industri berlangsung (yang menandai berakhirnya sistem feodal) dimana dipergunakan teknologi dalam industri yang menyebabkan peran buruh menjadi kurang. Pihak borjuis yang menguasai sarana produksi dapat dengan mudahnya mendapatkan penghasilan karena bisa melakukan proses produksi. Sebaliknya kaum proletar (para buruh) yang pendapatannya tergantung dengan kaum borjuis semakin terpojok akibat kapitalisme yang menggantikan posisi mereka dengan teknologi baru (Pozzolini, 2006). Berawal dari sinilah terjadilah antagonisme kelas antara kaum borjuis dan proletar. Puncak dari antagonisme ini adalah revolusi yang menghasilkan persamaan kedudukan antara kaum borjuis dan proletar (Woodfin, 2008).

Satu hal yang bisa digarisbawahi dari penjelasan sedikit ini adalah Marx menolak secara tegas adanya ketidakseimbangan kelas antara proletar dan borjuis dan menghendaki adanya revolusi proletariat. Inilah tugas yang seharusnya dilakukan oleh kaum proletar untuk mendapatkan kesetaraan dan haknya kembali yakni menggulingkan kapitalisme dengan menggebrak kaum borjuis (Pozzolini, 2008). Dengan adanya revolusi maka kesetaraan akan didapatkan kembali dan utopianisme untuk membuat masyarakat dunia yang sosialis akan terbantahkan. Dunia yang dicita-citakan dimana hak milik pribadi dihapuskan dan menjadi hak bersama bukanlah hal yang mustahil (Suseno, 1999). Hal ini pun akan semakin membuktikan bahwa pemikiran Karl Marx bukan hanya bersifat fisafati namun sangat ilmiah (sosiologis) dan dapat diaplikasikan.
Namun demikian sepertinya utopianisme itu benar-benar terjadi, terbukti dengan runtuhnya rezim komunis terbesar di dunia yakni bubarnya Uni Soviet pada tahun 1991 setelah partai komunis gagal mendapatkan suara dalam pemerintahan (Suseno, 1999). Berakhirnya Perang Dingin antara blok Barat (Amerika Serikat) dan Timur (USSR) yang kemudian dimenangkan oleh Amerika Serikat memicu dunia untuk meniru sistem politik dan ekonomi yang dianutnya. Nilai-nilai liberal mengenai demokrasi dan individualisme kembali mencuat ke permukaan dan kapitalisme mucul dengan wajah baru, globalisasi (Gilpin, 2000). Era pasar bebas ini menuntut setiap negara untuk berjuang memperdagangkan keunggulan komoditas negaranya ke pasar internasional. Kemajuan teknologi dalam bidang informasi terutama semakin memacu percepatan denyut nadi globalisasi.

Melihat kenyataan ini maka akan secara jelas kita pertanyaan, ”Mengapa hipotesis marxisme terhadap runtuhnya kapitalisme di kemudian hari tidak terbukti?” Sebelum menjawab pertanyaan ini penulis akan menjelaskan pembahasan ini ke dalam 3 pembahasan yakni pembahasan mengenai pemikiran Karl Marx terhadap Marxisme, pembehasan mengenai globalisasi, serta pembahasan mengenai ketidakrelevansian Marxisme dalam era globalisasi.

Riwayat Hidup dan Pemikiran Karl Marx mengenai Marxisme
Berikut ini akan penulis kutipkan riwayat hidup dan pemikiran Karl Marx mengenai Marxisme yang penulis ambil dari buku ’Pemikiran Karl Marx, dari Sosialisme Utopis ke Perselisihan Revisionisme’ yang ditulis oleh Franz Magnis Suseno (dengan editing di beberapa kalimat tentunya). Tujuan penulis mencantumkan riwayat hidup dan peta pemikiran Karl Marx adalah untuk memahami konsep filosofi pemikiran Marx yang utama. Selanjutnya akan penulis ringkas kembali dalam beerapa poin penting.

Karl Marx lahir pada tahun 1818 di kota Trier, Prussia (sekarang Jerman Barat). Ayahnya adalah seorang pengacara Yahudi. Pendidikan dasar dan menengahnya ditempuh di gymnasium (semacam sekolah setingkat SD-SMA) hingga lulus. Dari gymnasium ayah Marx menginginkan Marx belajar hukum untuk melanjutkan profesinya sebagai notaris, namun Marx tidak berminat dan justru pindah ke Berlin untuk belajar Filsafat.
Filsafat di Berlin sangat dipengaruhi oleh pemikiran Hegel, seorang filusuf politik yang menempatkan rasionalitas dan kebebasan sebagai nilai tertinggi. Marx muda sangat tertarik dengan filsafat Hegel dan dari filsafat Hegel inilah ia mengajukan sebuah pertanyaan (yang berkaitan dengan kondisi reaksioner Prussiaterhadap masyarakatnya) yang selanjutnya akan menjadi dasar teori Marxisnya yakni, ”bagaimana membebaskan manusia dari penindasan sistem politik reaksioner (Prussia)?” Saat itu Marx tergabung dalam suatu kelompok bernama Klub Para Doktor dan menjadi kaum Hegelian-muda yang sangat mengkritisi pemerintah Prussia. Yang unik dari statusnya sebagai penganut Hegelian-muda adalah ia sendiri oposisi terhadap filsafat Hegel sebab Hegel diklaim sebagai teolog Protestan yang mendukung Prussia dan Marx tidak setuju akan hal ini. Oleh karena itu Marx disebut juga sebagai Hegelian Kiri.

Berstatus sebagai seorang Hegelian kiri pemikiran Marx terus mencoba menggali filsafat Hegel dan menemukan sebuah ketidakkonsistenan pada kondisi masyarakat Prussia yang berada dibawah tekanan pemerintah dengan kondisi masyarakat Prussia yang digambarkan sebagai masyarakat rasional dan bebas oleh Hegel Pemikiran ini terus berkecamuk dalam pikiran Marx hingga akhirnya ia menemukan teori Feuerbach yang mengungkapkan bahwa ciri reaksioner negara Prussia adalah suatu ungkapan sebuah keterasingan manusia dari dirinya sendiri.
Pindah ke Paris Marx kembali menelusuri pertanyaannya tadi dengan pertanyaan dimanakah Marx bisa menemukan keterasingan itu. Dari interaksinya dengan beberapa tokoh sosialis seperti Proudhon dan Friederich Engels ia menemukan jawaban bahwa keterasingan berlangsung dalam proses pekerjaan manusia, dan pekerjaan akan menjadi identitas manusia. Namun sistem hak milik pribadi kapitalis yang sarat eksploitasi justru membuat manusia mengasingkan diri.

Mengerti akan hal ini Marx kemudian semakin memusatkan perhatian kepada syarat-syarat penghapusan hak milik pribadi. Ia mengklaim bahwa konsep sosialisme yang dimilikinya adalah sosialisme ilmiah yangtidak hanya didorong oleh cita-cita moral, melainkan berdasarkan pengetahuan ilmiah tentang hukum-hukum perkembangan masyarakat. Dari sinilah pendekatan Marx akhirnya berubah dari yang bersifat filosofis menjadi semakin sosiologis. Sosialisme dipandang sebagai paham sejarah yang materialistik yang mana dimengerti sebagai dialektika antara perkembangan bidang ekonomi dengan struktur kelas sosial.

Dari pemahaman tersebut Marx berpendapat bahwa faktor yang menentukan sejarah bukanlah politik atau ideologi melainkan ekonomi. Perkembangan dalam cara produksi lama-kelamaan akan membuat struktur hak milik lama menjadi hambatan kemajuan. Dalam situasi ini akantimbul revolusi sosial yang melahirkan bentuk masyarakat yang lebih tinggi.

Sebagai kesimpulan dari pemikirannya, Marx menjelaskan bahwa kapitalisme tidak akan pernah berjaya karena akan timbul revolusi buruh yang akan menghapus hak milik pribadi atas alat-alat produksi dan mewujudkan masyarakat sosialis tanpa kelas Inilah yang selanjutnya disebut sebagai paham Marxisme oleh pengikutnya (Marx sendiri tidak pernah berkata bahwa pendapatnya ini adalah sebuah teori atau paham, bahkan ia sendiri mengelak untuk disebut sebagai seorang Marxis).

Berdasarkan pemikiran filosofis Karl Marx di atas penulis dapat memberikan beberapa poin penting:
1.Marxisme memiliki tiga akar utama yakni dasar filsafat Hegel yang gagasan utamanya dibalik (menghasilkan teori dialektika materialisme), teori ekonomi-politik yakni Teori Nilai Lebih dan Teori Nilai Tenaga Kerja, dan yang keiga adalah teori evolusi.
a.Teori Dialektika
”Situasi dan kondisi yang ada di dunia ini menciptakan ide-ide kita, bukan sebaliknya (Woodfin, 2008). Sehingga jika dikaitkan dengan sejarah: sejarah terjadi dari situasi dan perkembangan alam manusia”
Teori ini menguatkan posisi Marxisme sebagai teori yang ilmiah.
b.Teori Ekonomi Politik
1.Teori Nilai Lebih
 waktu tambahan diluar kontrak kerja yang dipaksakan untuk dilakukan oleh tenaga kerja demi perusahaan akan memberikan keuntungan bagi perusahaan. Semakin banyak waktu yang dipaksakan keuntungan produksi akan semakin banyak (berujung pada eksploitasi buruh)
2.Teori Nilai Tenaga Kerja (Teori David Ricardo)
teori ini berpendapat bahwa untuk menaikkan harga komoditas hasil produksi, suatu pekerja harus ditempatkan di situ sebab variable cost suatu komoditas akan dihitung berdasarkan jam kerja dan jumlah pekerja yang turut serta (bukan hanya mesin saja). Penggunaan mesin saja akan menurunkan nilai barang (kapitalisme membawa keuntungan dengan hadirnya tehnologi tetapi tehnologi tanpa campur tangan manusia juga dapat menurunkan nilai komoditas)
c.Teori Revolusi
Akibat dari subtitusi peran buruh dalam proses produksi oleh teknologi gaji buruh menjadi lebih rendah. Di sisi lain harga komoditas semakin melangit akibat proses produksi yang memadukan teknologi dan tenaga buruh sehingga tidak bisa dijangkau oleh buruh. Dua kondisi ini mau tidak mau akan menimbulkan reaksi keras dari masyarakat dan membuat kehancuran sistem kapitalis. Kesadaran kelas ini disebut dengan ’kesadaran dari keterasingan diri’

2.Terdapat pertentangan kelas antara borjuis dengan proletar
Marx dalam salah satu kutipannya menyatakan bahwa pada dasarnya sejarah dari seluruh perjuangan masyarakat adalah perjuangan kelas, dan inilah yang diperjuangkan oleh kelas proletar dalam sebuah revolusi.
Pada dasarnya manusia bukan makhluk yang egois. Timbulnya kelas dikarenakan adanya perubahan kekuatan produksi yang mendorong terjadinya perubahan dalam hubungan produksi. Beberapa orang yang bisa mendapatkan kontrol terhadap kekuatan produksi akan dapat menggunakan tenaga orang lain sehingga mereka tidak perlu bekerja. Inilah yang membentuk kelas borjuis. Sebaliknya orang yang tidak mendapatkan kekuatan produksi harus bekerja untuk bertahan hidup (Moodfin, 2008).

Analogi dari gambaran kelas borju adalah sebagai berikut: kelas borjuis memiliki kekuatan produksi -> diolah sehingga menjadi komoditas ->keuntungan. Sedangkan untuk kaum proletar analoginya adalah : komoditas yang berupa tenaga untuk bekerja ->mendapat upah kerja ->membeli komoditas. Dapat dilihat pada uraian di sini bahwa konsep pertentangan kelas terjadi tidak bersangkut-paut dengan sikap hati atau moralitas warga kelas (misal: bahwa proletar akan tertindas gara-gara sentimen warga borjuis) tersebut namun perbedaan kepentingan yang tidak dapat disatukan antara keduanya (Suseno,1999).

Kaum borjuis karena menguasai sistem produksi dia berupaya untuk mendapatkan keuntungan dengan cara memainkan instrumen produksinya yang kemudian akan menghasilkan barang berikut keuntungannya. Cara untuk mendapat keuntungan adalah dengan menekan biaya kerja buruh agar mereka bisa tetap bisa bersaig di pasar bebas. Sebaliknya karena kaum proletar tidak menguasai instrumen usaha hal yang harus mereka lakukan adalah bekerja, bekerja, dan bekerja untuk mendapatkan upah yang besar. Mereka bisa saja meminta untuk mengurangi jam kerja, namun karena posisi mereka telah disubstitusikan dengan kehadiram mesin industri mereka tidak bisa bergerak banyak (Suseno, 1999).
Kasus adanya kelas sebenarnya telah ada sebelum adanya kapitalisme. Tepatnya pada masa feodalisme dimana kaum aristrokrat menguasai para budak. Setelah adanya revolusi borjuis sistem feodal diganti menjadi sistem kapitalis yang juga menimbulkan kelas yakni borjuis dan proletar.

3.Manifesto Komunis sebagai puncak dari revolusi
Pada 21 Februari 1848 diprakarsai oleh liga komunis, Marx dan Engels mengeluarkan sebuah manifesto komunis yang berisi ketetapan sebagai berikut:
1.penghapusan kepemilikan tanah dan penggunaan seluruh tanah sewa untuk kepentingan publik
2.pajak progresif yang tinggi atau pajak penghasilan berdasarkan kelas
3.penghapusan semua hak warisan
4.penyitaan pemilikan kaum emigran dan kaum pemberontak
5.sentralisasi kredit di bank negara dengan modal negara dan monopoli eksklusif
6.sentralisasi alat-alat komunikasi dan transportasi di tangan negara
7.perluasan pabrik-pabrik dan instrumen produksi yang dimiliki oleh negara; pengolah tanah yang terlantar, dan perbaikan tanah sesuai dengan suatu rencana bersama
8.kewajiban setara bagi semua orang untuk bekerja. Pmbentukan massa buruh yang bekerja keras terutama dalam sektor pertanian
9.penggabungan sektor pertanian denganindustri manufaktur, penghapusa secara bertahap semua perbedaan antara kota dan desa dengan distribusi yang lebih setara untuk segenap populasi di seluruh negeri
10.pendidikan gratis untuk demua anak sekolah umum, penghapusan pemakaian buruh anak termasuk kombinasi pendidikan dengan industri
Tujuan dari dikeluarkannya manifesto politik ini adalah untuk menguatkan pergerakan buruh dalam mencapai puncak kejayaannya yakni revolusi.

Globalisasi Ekonomi
Berakhirnya Perang Dingin pada tahun 1989 dan keruntuhan Uni Soviet pada tahun 1991 berakibat pada perdebatan internasional tentang bentuk tata dunia baru. Hilangnya Uni Soviet dari kekuatan dunia dan munculnya Amerika Serikat sebagai kekuatan tunggal membuat banyak konspirasi bahwa nilai-nilai liberal Amerika yang luhur tentang demokrasi, individualisme, dan pasar bebas telah mendekatkan dunia menuju kepada era kesejahteraan yang belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya (Gilpin, 2000).

Terlepas dari adanya dominasi liberal Amerika Serikat, di dunia muncul berbagai negara dengan kekuatan ekonomi baru seperti Cina, India dan Asia Pasifik bahkan muncul pula aktor-aktor selain negara yang berperan dalam pasar global. Keseluruhan pandangan dunia pasca berakhirnya Perang Dingin tidak lagi memandang keamanan militer sebagai prioritas utama melainkan keamanan ekonomilah yang menjadi prioritas utama. Dunia masuk ke dalam era ekonomi-politik bukan lagi era militer-politik dimana pasar adalah pemeran utamanya bukan lagi negara-negara berdaulat.

Menurut Khor globalisasi memiliki 4 aspek penting yakni runtuhnya hambatan ekonomi nasional, meluasnya aktivitas produksi, keuangan dan perdagangan internasional berubah dengan pesat, dan berkembangnya kekuatan perusahaan transnasional serta institusi moneter internasional (Khor, 2003). Budaya ekonomi internasional lama yang didominasi dengan kegiatan impor kini berbalik menjadi budaya ekspor. Gejala-gejala ini dapat dipandang sebagai sebuah proses internasionalisasi negara-negara dunia yang mana batas-batas negara akan menjadi semakin rancu karena dunia adalah pasar secara keseluruhannya. Hambatan-hambatan yang memungkinkan dalam proses globalisasi ini akan sangat diminimalisir untuk bisa menguasai pasar.

Dibalik kebangkitan kapitalisme baru ini ternyata terdapat sisi gelap globalisasi yang mengincar: ketidakmerataan distribusi pendapatan negara. Alih-alih membawa kesejahteraan bagi seluruh masyarakat internasional ternyata ada beberapa spekulasi tertentu terutama dari negara-negara dunia ketiga yang merasa globalisasi justru semakin meningkatkan ketidakmerataan pendapatan di dalam suatu negara, pengangguran yang tinggi, serta konsekuensi merusak perekonomian nasional akibat arus investasi yang tidak diatur (Gilpin, 2000). Kritik terhadap globalisasi pun bermunculan pasca terjadinya krisis dunia pasca tahun 1997 yang mengakibatkan korban baik negara maju maupun berkembang. Pengintegrasian dunia oleh negara-negara yang kuat dalam sisi ekonomi maupun teknologi membuat dunia ketiga masuk kedalam jurang globalisasi yang tidak dapat mereka kendalikan.

Globalisasi: suatu kritik terhadap Marxisme
Melihat fenomena runtuhnya komunisme internasional dan munculnya kambali sistem kapitalis maka dapat dengan tegas dikatakan bahwa teori Marxisme tidak terbukti dengan melihat realita bahwa momok kapitalis kembali muncul dan bahkan semakin meluas pahamnya. Marxisme pun dikatakan gagal karena pemikirannya tentang ’buruh’ dan ’tuan tanah’ hanya bertahan hingga revolusi komunis yang menyebabkan ekspansi gerakan sosialis-komunis ke seluruh dunia dan dengan sekejap muncullah negara-negara sosialis-komunis pada awal tahun 1900an.
Datangnya globalisasi yang semakin gencar menggaung pasca Perang Dingin dengan hadirnya Amerika sebagai negara adikuasa membuat kekuasaan komunis di dunia serasa tergerus oleh revolusi kapitalis (yang mirip terjadi pada revolusi borjuis dari sistem feodal menuju sistem kapitalis). Hal yang terjadi justru mengalahkan paham Marxis-Leninis dunia dimana kapitalisme globalisasi menghantui dunia hingga saat ini.
Pemikiran kritis mengenai kegagalan ini segera di tangkap oleh Antonio Gramsci, seorang penganut sosialis Marxis yang kembali merekonstruksi ideologi Marx. Menurut Gramsci munculnya globalisasi yang sangat berkebalikan dengan ramalan Marx bahwa negara sosialis akan tumbuh di seluruh dunia dan menghancurkan kapitalis Barat pasca lahirnya negara-negara komunis justru diakibatkan karena deteriminisme ekonomi Marx yang memilih proletar industri sebagai kelas yang dianggap bisa mewakili revolusi buruh. Menurut Gramsci proletar dapat menjadi tidak revolusioner karena kaum borjuis mengontrol ide kaum proletar dengan memanipulasi kesadaran sosial mereka (ini disebut dengan hegemoni pemikiran). Akibatnya dalam masyarakat liberal yang demokratis perjuangan revolusioner akan menjadi lebih lama dan melibatkan ide-ide kebudayaan daripada sekedar perjuangan ekonomi dan politik (Pozzolini, 2006).

Berdasarkan penjelasan Gramsci di atas terbukalah jawaban mengapa Marxisme tetap tidak dapat membendung masuknya kembali ideologi ekonomi kapitalis dalam era globalisasi. Lenin pun angkat bicara dan meramalkan bahwa globalisasi adalah puncak dari keruntuhan ideologi kapitalis (Woodfin, 2008).

Masuk dalam pemikiran Lenin ini, penulis mencoba menalarkan kondisi globalisasi yang tidak jauh berbeda dengan kondisi sosial ekonomi pada masa borjuis dan proletar Marx. Seperti yang sudah penulis ungkap sebelumnya adanya globalisasi ternyata membawa efek buruk pada negara kecil dan lemah yang tidak bisa mengendalikan pola globalisasi dunia karena keterbatasannya di bidang ekonomi dan teknologi. Hal ini akan membuat negara yang memiliki kekuatan kecil (dalam hal ini sering dikatakan sebagai negara berkembang atau negara dunia ketiga) akan hidup di bawah bayang-bayang negara maju. Kondisi ini sama seperti kondisi dimana negara dunia ketiga identik dengan kaum proletar sedangkan negara dunia pertama identik dengan negara maju yang umumnya adalah negara eksportir/ negara produsen. Realisasinya negara dunia ketiga hanya berfungsi sebagai pasar negara maju dimana negara dunia ketiga ’terpaksa’ untuk mengimpor komoditas negara maju. Gagasan Gramsci-Lenin kembali bermain di sini dimana menurut mereka revolusi akan terjadi pada era globalisasi ini.

Analisis di atas bisa saja benar atau salah. Menurut penulis sendiri analisis tersebut bisa saja salah dengan tetap langgengnya ideologi kapitalis di dunia ini. Hal ini penulis dasarkan dengan anggapan bahwa globalisasi tidak akan pernah terhenti dengan munculnya grup-grup ekonomi regional yang terintegrasi. Sebagaimana diketahui tujuan dari integrasi regional adalah memberikan benteng perlindungan bagi setiap negara yang turut di dalamnya untuk bersatu menghadapi globlisasi ekonomi. Terintegrasinya beberapa negara menjadi sebuah kesatuan justru akan memperkuat posisi negara tersebut. Walaupun nantinya konsep kedaulatan negara akan sedikit kacau karena integrasi membawa kepada kesatuan komunitas internasional yang penuh integrasi akan mampu menyeimbangkan posisi multipolar dunia sehingga berada pada posisi balance of power. Dalam posisi seperti ini penulis meyakini bahwa paham Post-Marxisme maupun Neo-Marxisme akan sulit untuk menembus dinding integrasi.

Kesimpulan
Dari sekian banyak penjelasan penulis hal yang dapat diambil adalah bahwa Marxisme merupakan ideologi yang pernah sangat kuat mendominasi dunia internasional sebelum akhirnya runtuh seiring dengan jatuhnya Uni Soviet. Kritikan terhadap globalisasi terhadap Marxisme yang memunculkan kembali raksasa kapitalis bisa ditangkis dengan pemahaman Gramsci dan Lenin yang memprediksikan kehancuran kapitalis (revolusi Marxis yang sebenarnya) justru akan terjadi pada era globalisasi ini. Namun demikian menurut penulis anggapan ini bisa saja salah karena globalisasi tidak mungkin dilawan. Sebagai senjatanya negara-negara justru akan berintegrasi kedalam polar-polar tertentu yang membuatnya berada pada posisi balance of power, seimbang. Globalisasi akan dapat ditangkis melalui proses integrasi ini sehingga prediksi revolusi Marxis terjadi pada masa globalisasi bisa saja salah.

DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Gilpin, Robert dan J.M. Gilpin. 2000. Tantangan Kapitalisme Global, Ekonomi Dunia Abad-21. Jakarta: PT. RAJAGRAFINDO PERSADA
Khor, Martin. 2003. Globalisasi: Perangkap Negara-Negara Selatan. Yogyakarta: Cindelaras Pustaka Rakyat Cerdas
Pozzolini, A. 2006. Pijar-pijar Pemikiran Gramsci. Yogyakarta: Resist Book
Suseno, Franz Magnis.1999.Pemikiran Karl Marx, dari Sosalisme Utopis ke Perselisihan Revisionisme. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Woodfin, Rupert dan Oscar Zarate. 2008. Marxisme untuk Pemula. Yogyakarta: Resist book

Comments (4) »

Inspiration, dream, and truth..

Do you know what inspire me know?

1. Jesus my beloved God. You are my leader..

2. Diplomat, ambassador, UN worker..

3. European land, Australia, China, USA..

4. Mr. Coffi Anam, Mr. Ong Keng Yong, Mr. Ban Ki Moon..

5. ASEAN, UN, MNC..

You know why? because I have a dream to be:

1. Ambassador, diplomat..

2. UN worker..

3. Public Relations in MNC..

4. Another success person..

5. Journal Writter in International Relations..

And a dream to..

1. Visit another states..

2. School abroad..

3. Get more and more higher education..

And the truth now..

I’m still a student in university who have a thousand dream to go outside the border of Indonesia with my own ability. Of course I can’t visit it with running..walked..or flying but I will realized it with my spectaculer dream, with my believeness, with my pray.

You may say that I’m too idealist and big dreamer..It’s up to you! But I believe that one day I can go there and I can be person like them. Who are they? They are a same with me so why I can be like them?

God..I give my dreams to your hands..

Bless me..

Leave a comment »

Brain Drain as Phenomena in International Migration: A Discussion between Pro and Contra

Arranged by Luke Pramudita

Introduction
Discuss the imbalanced condition between developed countries and developing countries we may ask why developing countries rarely grow as the developed countries. The answer of this question sometimes related with the minimum quality of human resources had by every countries. To overcome this phenomenon there is trends in developing countries to send out the potential peoples to get studied for a several times than send back to the home countries to implicating the knowledge.

In the real situation the process to sending and returning the potential peoples doesn’t work successfully because of several error factors (inside or outside). The peoples mostly work in host countries and don’t want to go back to the home countries. These phenomena called with Brain Drain. The brain drain actually not only happened for students who studied abroad but also skilled and competent peoples (engineer, doctor, lecturer, scientist, technician, etc). Because of these phenomena states not only lose skilled people who can give education infestation for the state’s citizen but also the fund that given to them to get study abroad.

Discussion: How should we look brain drain?
Actually we can’t make a judgment that brain drain is controversial and states shouldn’t send people to study abroad because of many negative factors behind it. In the contrary we also can’t say that states should legalized the brain drainer to work abroad and don’t go back to the home states. They are national asset and states should keep them working for the home states.

Looking at this domino effect, how should we look brain drain phenomena? Before answer this question let me pointing out the discussion between contra and pro related with brain drain.

1.We are Contra with Brain Drain!
Mostly as what I’ve tell before, brain drain always looked as the contra action in international migration. The contra group pointed out 5 reasons why they contra with brain drain:
1.Brain drainer become brain strainer who don’t have high nationalism because don’t want to go back to the home country
2.The states condition can be worse because the states loose the skilled and competent people who can handle any problems in home states. These may cause the mismanagement, conflict, and poor working conditions for the home countries.
3.There are fiscal costs for the home country and also the tax revenue that should pay for the home countries.
4.There will be flip situation where host states (which is more develop than home states) always support with skilled people who are emigrant than in home states government should conducive skilled people from host states (with a lot of salary of course) to work in home countries.
5.The differentiation (based on national prosperity) between home countries (mostly represented by developing countries) and host countries (represented by developed countries) sharply visible. There is no contribution for the home countries but a lot of contribution for the host countries.

2.It doesn’t matter with Brain Drain!
Differently the pro group has the different idea about brain drain. They pointed out several points:
1.Not all of brain drainers are going to be brain strainers. There are a lot of brain drainers who also become brain gainers who back to the home countries and give many contribution for the home countries
2.The purpose from brain drainers to go abroad is to look for better life. It is not the best answer to reduce the brain drain because human have the opportunity to migrate to look the better life.
3.Home governments doesn’t gives any reward for the brain gainers
4.Live in home countries after reach high studies don’t give any jobs because they can’t apply the skill that they had abroad.
5.Little salary for the brain gainer if they work in home countries.

Conclusion: It’s ok to have Brain Drain.
From the discussion above, I can made a conclusion that brain drain basically good for the home countries but it also a hard work for the governments to interest the brain drainer to go to home countries to give contribution. A reward needed for the brain gainers who have a good plan to go back and give contribution for the home country. Government should give good facilities for the skilled person to place and make them functional in the right place to work. Whenever stop the brain drain is not a solution because we still need the role of developed countries, but to ensure the brain drainer to go to the home states also be the national agenda

Leave a comment »

VIEW THE APPLICATING OF CONSTRUCTIVISM THEORY

Arranged by: Luke Pramudita

  1. Introduction

We know two of basic theories in IR which are well known; liberalism and realism. Liberalism think that peace can be reach with give freedom and mechanism of rules and laws to the persons and states so there will be reached international stability. In the other side Realism thinks that international system is anarchy and impossible to made mechanism above the states sovereignty (because states is the only actor in IR). Based on little explanation above we may see the contrast of these two theories.

In the late of 1980 with the existence of constructivism, theorists found the way to explaining the debate between realist and liberal view towards the international system. They construct one middle theory between realism and liberalism to explain that these new theory can answer the long debate between two major theorists above. This theory construct with combining the basic characteristics of both two theories.

Viewing this constructivism we may ask how the theorists look the different concept between realist and liberal as the good combination so can end the debate between these two theories. Here writer will try to find how the theorists construct the liberal-realism and how are the essentials of this theory.

  1. Reconstruct Thomas Hobbes Liberal-Realism Theory

The construction of liberal-realism theory actually presented firstly by Thomas Hobbes with his phenomenal book Leviathan. He had known as the founding father of both realism and liberalism1. To construct this theory he explained his idea into 3 basic concepts:

  1. Realist and Liberal have same soil

He explained that basically human has three central notions: ‘the human being as evil’ (in the sense of sinful and fallen creature), ‘the human being as free’, and the last are ‘the human being as rational’. In the capacity of rational, human has ‘being the free’ and ‘being the sinful or evil’ so logically human impossible if just has the ‘free aspect’ or the ‘evil ones’.

  1. Realist and Liberal has the same logic

To construct this theory, Hobbes tried to include both notions as positive elements of this theory. The notion of the human being like self-interested, violent, and sinful are buried in everybody but in the human society where occur of well-known war called ‘war every man against every man’ peoples choose to limit their notions to freely loosed from this war. This action view that out of the self-interested and egoistic acts there were arise stability, peace, and the common good.

  1. Realist and Liberal has the same problems

Hobbes explained that everything that is good in human reality is here basically determined by its opposite: trust is won from suspicion and the enforcement of law, prosperity comes from winning a competition, and peace is at bottom war.

From the explanation above we may conclude the constructivist of liberal-realism theory. Thomas Hobbes explains that realism and liberalism share the same ideological framework and challenged by an ethics that digs deeper into the presuppositions of how to understand human existence. In the conclusion although human notions are basically evil but he tried to harmonizing his freedom to loosed from the war of ‘everyman against everyman’, and problem that made by one theory will have on the other theory.

  1. The Essential Concept of Liberal-Realism Theory : Rationalism

The constructivism of liberal-realism actually emerged as the impact of international debate about liberal and realist and tries to make new theory that combine these major theories based on positive think of notions. There also another motive that said the construct of liberal-realism is because the fact in international relations that there is no one action which pure 100% based on liberalism or realism. There is tendentious to made them become liberal-realist or realist-liberal.

The other expectation about the emergence of liberal-realism is the replacement cycle between realism and liberalism in international relations. We will see the picture below which tells that the glorious peak between realism and liberalism is always substituting one another. We may also see that in the different time the graphic of realism or liberalism meet in the equilibrium line. This means that sometimes there is tendentious into concept of liberal-realism. From the concept of equilibrium point there we can say that equilibrium condition are more often emerge than the situation of glorious peak of liberal and realism. This might be concluding that international condition more often reaches the liberal-realism condition than most liberals or most realists.

Look back to the basic paradigm of liberal-realism, why the position of liberal and realism can be broke wth the theory of liberal-realism? There are many motives that made these both theories are weaker on its position:

  1. Realist seem to be pessimistic and maybe too relativist to see the international relations. It is because they argues that a state’s power should be our only concern and that its interna composition is of interest to us only insofar as it serves that power, but not as it might serve justice (Sam Roggeven).

  2. Liberalism is really too radical for the latet conservatism that exists among many classical liberals. First it would mean eventually abandoning the idea of national sovereignty, and second the entire world ought to be governed falls into the trap of considering government an a priori science rather than a continuous process of muddling through them (Sam Roggeven).

So understanding about all of this explanation how should we look liberal-realism? Hedley Bull the Australian political philosophers in his book The Anarchical Society explained that phenomena of liberal-realism in the framework of Grotian rationalism2. How rationalism3 explain these phenomena?

Hedley Bull here explains the liberal-realism into 2 passages with rationalism framework:

  1. Rationalism is in some ways an outgrowth of Realism in that it too recognizes anarchy as the defeating characteristic of IR. Rationalist see more order than realist to the extent that they believe in the existence of international society. This international society is an organic or traditional institution that has grown out to the diplomatic centuries with the emerges of BOP, International Law, and wars.

  2. Rationalism argue that different traditions and institutions help bring states together into an international society. The key point is that these traditions and institutions exist as procedural frameworks, not as meant to particular ends.

  1. Conclusion

The rationalism brings to the brighter mean of liberal-realism. It gives explanation that liberal-realism should be looked as the free mechanism which aims to pursue and then promote the mechanism by which they might do so peacefully

  1. Bibliography

Rolfsen, Chaplain Raag. The Ethics of Vulnerability, Political Realism and Economics. Accessed by internet.

Roggoven, Sam. Towards a Liberal Theory of IR. Accessed by internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory,

1 Thomas Hobbes known as the founding father theorist who combine the concept of political realism and economic liberalism. (Chaplain Raag Rolfsen; The Ethics of Vulnerability, Political Realism and Economics pg. 1-4)

2 Hedley Bull explain when a group of states realize their self to be bunched by the norms, they should be work together in these group together (Sam Roggoven; Towards a Liberal Theory of IR, pg.29-32).

3 Rationalism also called as the liberal-realism in the theme of English School. (Wikipedia Encyclopedia)

Leave a comment »

INDONESIA’S PROBLEM WITH THE SMUGGLING AND TRAFFICKING OF WEAPON RELATED WITH NATIONAL BELLIGERENCY Case Study : Papua Freedom Organization / Organisasi Papua Merdeka (PFO or OPM) in West Papua

Arranged by Luke Pramudita

Intoduction
In this globalization era everything in this world linked easily and made the international society integrate into international system. The integration between many actors in international society will made some of changes that will influence the root of sovereignty of states. We may see the concept of state sovereignty are vague in several aspect (especially related with the technology)1. That problems will be more complex if the state linked with the national security.

As we know that Indonesia is an islands state that has a long of coast line and very wide area. Its location which strategic between Asia and Australia continent and between Hindian and Pacific Ocean place Indonesia as a playing field for countries from all over regions in achieving their interest. In one side with the condition of the large area and strategic location, Indonesia can get many surplus from it but in the other side the location of Indonesia is susceptible with its national security (intranational conflicts and international conflicts) and international crimes2. That’s why at this moment national security have become important elements in Indonesian foreign policy.

One from 18 international criminal case3 that Indonesia should overcome is the smuggling and trafficking of illicit arms weapons. In Southeast Asia the smuggling and trafficking (especially in Indonesia) which has politic, economy and national defence aspect can influence the stability of the regions4. In Indonesia as example the illegal weapons sometimes used in some kind of separatist organization in Indonesia to swift and help their movements.

Tell about the phenomena of belligerency in Indonesia, it has become the big problems in Indonesia for long time ago since the independence of Indonesia. As we know in Orde Lama period of governance in Indonesia the organization like DI/TII and Permesta which one is lead by D.N. Aidit has try to made new independent states in Madiun and Sulawesi. Not enough with the mass organization, there is PKI (Indonesia Communist Party) that is political party with communism bow who ever done coup d’etat to Indonesian government (known as G-30 S PKI)5. Both of them have made instability to Indonesia’s government.
Nowadays, the belligerent issues still become the big project of the Indonesian government. But different with the belligerent organization in Orde Lama, the belligerent in Orde Baru until Orde Reformasi at this time the actors are not DI/TII, Permesta and PKI again but more complex that is Aceh Freedom Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka / GAM) and Papua Freedom Organization (Organisasi Papua Merdeka / OPM)6. Why writer said that these freedom organizations are more complex than the belligerency organization in Orde Lama? It is because the GAM and OPM recently get the international recognition from the other states7 so the problem is widening into international case.

Here writer want to analyze the problem of Indonesian government related with the smuggling and trafficking of weapons which essentially related with the separatism movement organization in Indonesia especially in the case of OPM. Writer divide this essay into 4 sections there are theoretical framework in the first section which explain the theory related the phenomena of weapon’s smuggling and trafficking, theory about the making of belligerency and theory about weapons as the politic instrument, the explanation of OPM in the second section which investigate the origin of OPM, the smuggling and trafficking of weapons in Indonesia related with OPM organization in the third section and conclusion in the last section.

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis
a. Theory Related the Smuggling and Trafficking of Weapons
The activity of smuggling and trafficking of weapons is included in the existence of Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) which explain as the organization of crime which have durability, hierarchy and involvement in a multiplicity of criminal activities. The United Nations convention about TOC explain the criteria of international crimes :

1.it is committed in more than one state,
2.it is committed in one state but a substantial part of its preparation, planning, direction, or control takes place in another state,
3.it is committed in one state but involves an organized criminal group that engages in criminal activities in more than one state, or
4.it is committed in one state but has substantial effects in another state. (Perwita and Yani 2005:12)

In specific way UN also identified the transnational crimes into 18 classification, these are: money laundering, terrorist activities, theft of art and cultural object, theft of intellectual property, illicit traffic and smuggling arms weapons, sea piracy, hijacking on land, insurance fraud, computer crime, environmental crime, trafficking in persons, trade human body parts, illicit drug trafficking, fraudulent bankruptcy, infiltration of legal business, corruption and bribery of public official and finally other offenses committed by organized criminal groups (United Nations TOC Convention, compiled by Ralf Emmers 2005)8.

The smuggling and trafficking of weapons (arm weapons) in Indonesia can be classify as the transnational crime so it should be overcome in every states. It is based on the criteria of UN yield of Transnational Criminal Convention at all point. It also record as on of the eighteen shape of transnational crimes.
b. Theory Related with The Making of Belligerent
In his book Kusumaatmadja and Agoes (2002) belligerent can be describe as the individu (rarely found) or groups that has the right as the side of lawsuit in any relative conditions. Kusumaatmadja try to identify the concept of belligerent here in classic view (appropriate with the law of war) as the example the belligerency between USA and its allies with USSR at the first World War about the land of Germany.
But Kusumaatmadja also find the different view in international belligerent at this time. He found fact that paradigm of belligerency has change to the new concept that develop in developing countries like here: peoples have a human right such as:
1.right to choose their own fate
2.the freedom right to choose their own social, economy, and politic system
3.right to manage their own resources from their land. (Kusumaatmadja 2000)9.
c. Theory Related With the Used of Weapons as The Instrument Politic

Why there still the smuggling and trafficking event in Indonesia related the belligerency in West Papua? Holsti (1988 : 30-76) and Kusumohamidjojo (1987 : 46-54; 72-76) in the same way told that the use of weapons is used for the instrument politic of states. The need to use weapons as the instrument politic influence the illicit smuggling and trafficking of weapons. As we know West Papua organization (OPM) is an illegal organization in Indonesia that try to get their freedom from Indonesia. As the illegal organization and not related with the used of weapons in daily, of course OPM doesn’t have authority to get supply of weapon’s from the government of Indonesia. Whereas in the process to reach the goal, OPM need the weapons to fight against the Indonesia’s conspiracy10.

Papua Freedom Organization, The Polemic of Indonesia’s History


The case of Papua’s freedom has been known since 1962 after the New York meeting between Indonesia and Netherlands about the status of West Papua’s land. The substance problem behind the New York agreement are the unwrapped of delegation from Papua’s which lawsuited by Indonesia and Netherlands in those meeting. Papua at this time like doesn’t has ability to made decision by theirself. The final result of this meeting is UN made decision to give back Papua’s land to the Indonesian sovereignty and Netherlands colonial government would be check out from Papua’s land11.

The consequence from New York agreement that gives the Papua’s land into the sovereignty of Indonesia without any decision from Papua’s peoples made some of Papua’s people need to done the freedom movement from Indonesia called OPM (Organisasi Papua Merdeka). Based on the literature that writer’s get, there are two kind of OPM from different faction in West Papua (but both still need to get freedom from Indonesia). These are faction that established by Aser Demotekey in 1963 and faction that established by Terianus Aronggear in Manokwari in 1964.

The differences between these two faction are the way to express their freedom movement. The faction from Aser Demotekey work with low politic (not radical). It’s act with done some negotiation process with Indonesian government to give back West Papua’s land to them. The next is faction from Terianus Aronggear. These faction express their freedom movement with radical action, done some of anarchy through the stability in Papua and hardly voices their belligerency to the other state. They are the real OPM that exposed by media12. Their radical action has been very dangerous because they had some of weapons from illegal trafficking or stole from the Indonesian army’s arsenal13.

Tell about West Papua’s movement what kind of reasons that made the belligerency of OPM? There writer classified it in 5 aspect based on record of Military Service Kodam XVII Cendrawasih14:
1.Political aspect
In the colonial era of Netherlands, the Netherlands governance promised to give sovereignty into West Papua land that separate from the sovereignty of Indonesia. But these promises never become reality because the New York agreement in 1962 made decision that Papua’s was under the sovereignty of Indonesia. The pro-Netherlands group that agree with this promises tried to made separatist group in West Papua.
2.Economic Aspect
In the year of after West Papua’s become Indonesia’s part (1964-1966) the economic of Indonesia was collapsed These made the goods distribution to Papua stopped and the peoples of Papua get food scarcity and hunger. Peoples of Papua never felt like this when they lived with the Netherlands colonial. Beside these the Papua’s resources which is abundant has been explored by Indonesia but papua’s peoples haven’t feel their own rich resources (the Papua’s resources often explored and distributed for the economy of Indonesia not and Papua’s peoples just feel little from their land exploration). They feel that Indonesia’s discriminate Papua’s people.
3.Psychologist Aspect
The Papua’s people commonly get poor education. With their weakens of education the Papua’s people is easy to get influenced by issues around their circumference. Their feeling is used more than their brain to think smartly.
4.Social Aspect
In Indonesia sometimes we can find differentiation between Papua’s peoples and the other (discrimination). Sometimes people of Indonesia made stereotype that Papua’s peoples are neglect, stupid, dirty etc. These paradigm has hurt the poeples pf Papua.
5.Ideologies Aspect
Papua’s peoples has the faith with the great of leader who can bring them into prosperous condition. Beside that the national ideologies of Papua is really different with the Indonesia because the history background of Papua’s rarely different with Indonesia.
The coming of OPM with a lot of background in West Papua land should be introduced and learn intensively by Indonesian government. This is international and domestic problem of Indonesia that hardly related with the status of Indonesian sovereignty, the basic of states to control the region and the ability to counter intra and international threats.

The Smuggling and Trafficking of Illegal Weapons in Indonesia: Help the Separatist and Conflict Groups in Indonesia (Case : Weapons Trafficking to Papua)
The smuggling and trafficking of illegal weapons in Indonesia is very high in its number. The explanation of this event are related with the geographical position of Indonesia :
1.Indonesia in Asia Pacific enter to the list of states that has the numerous of Intra-state conflict (ex: conflict in Poso, Maluku, Sampit, and Papua and than belligerency of OPM and GAM) 15.
2.There are many weapons that could enter Indonesia because the states around Indonesia is post colonial and post-war square (example : Vietnam) so it’s easy to get weapons in Asia Pasific region16.
3.With its large border limited with 10 states (Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, Papua New Guinea, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Rep. Palau, and Timor Leste), Indonesia difficult to keep the smuggling and trafficking in its sovereignty limitation17.
4.The strategic position of Indonesia make Indonesia as one of the international harbor trade. This condition also perfectly used by TOC to smuggle the weapons via Indonesia to distribute to the other states18.
5.Indonesia is one of the terrorism operation basis in East Asia19.

With all potential below the regions of Indonesia actually susceptible with the smuggling of weapons.
Related with The OPM, Indonesia has indicated the route of the weapons to Indonesia which probably also distributed to Papua. Here Writer classified into three source : from West Indonesia, From North Indonesia, From Northwest Indonesia, From Northeast Indonesia, and From Indonesia – Timor Leste border.
1.West Indonesia
The source in this area commonly come from Thailand which distribute it into Malaysia and than to Indonesia. The weapons were smuggled by sea, by taking advantage small islands that is bordered with Indonesia. Among those island is Adang island20. After that with black market the weapons will bring to Papua by sea. But this route is probably far and need extra money to send it to Papua so its rare to access weapon from this route. This route actually effective for GAM.
2.North Indonesia
The source in this area is come from South Philippines which smuggled via Bitung island, Sangihe Talaud and Tawao – Nunukan21. From this route the weapons distribute to Papua.
3.Northwest Indonesia
The source in this area is come from Yugoslavia and Israel which smuggled by sea and centered in Pulogadung and Solo22.
4.Northeast Indonesia
The source in this area is come from United States which send by Pacific ocean via Hawaii23.
5.Indonesia – Timor Leste border
This area are the most fatal area because Timor Leste is the post conflict area. The weapons which come from this area can be sent to Papua easily. What a big business. We can see the fact at the field that there are many sources of weapons which can accessed by OPM easily.

Accepted or not the reality that Indonesia has become the black market of weapons mostly influence the stability and integrity of Indonesia. Related with the belligerency like OPM the black market of weapons were surely helped their action to separate from the sovereignty of Indonesia. These phenomena can be very serious and dangerous problem for Indonesia. Republic of Vanuatu have recognized the existence of OPM, would the other state recognized it as the great belligerent like PLO in Palestine so Indonesia should liberate West Papua?

Conclusion : Indonesia Should Work Hard
Learn about the emerge Papua Freedom Organization (OPM) in Indonesia what can we conclude in the common? States should be active in the way to the defense of their own territorial region. We have see that Indonesia which has the large territorial area haven’t effectively keep it. The concept of national defense here not just mean the ability to keep the land, air and water (physics) but also the similar prosperity from Sabang until Merauke. Indonesia should back to the last national orientation that is Wawasan Nusantara, Indonesia should keep it not just in theory but also in practice.

Talking about the belligerency that made by West Papua organization, Indonesia should be learn back to his history that they ever find the same belligerency (insurgency) although it wasn’t as big as OPM. In the practice it had proved that Indonesia could anticipate the insurgency like Permesta and PKI. Indonesia should learn how to defense it (this is not the time to accuse one and another about who’s the wrong in this case, that’s too late).

Also in the smuggling of weapons. Indonesia in this case can’t be work by itself because the smuggling and trafficking of weapons is transnational crimes that should be overcome together. In this case, Indonesia can be made agreement with several states about the illegal trafficking of weapons. Indonesia also can brought this problem into ASEAN as the regional governmental organization in Southeast Asia. With working together as a team everything could be done, but the states here also need to unite in one project as the community goal (don’t just think by their ownself with different national interest).
Finally Indonesia with its government should discuss this problem intensively. This is about national sovereignty which is fatal if the states done the wrong way. Indonesia of course don’t want to least the West Papua but the government also need to correct what they have done to the Papua’s peoples which always made classification in every single life. Papua is rich but Papua’s people never get rich from their land.

In the near time, I think the problem of Papua will become international topic. Indonesia will dragged again in United Nations assembly to discuss about the west Papua. Will Indonesia loose it (again) like Timor and Sipadan-Ligitan, we haven’t know before. But if it’s true the song of “Dari Sabang sampai Merauke” will be edited.

-end-

REFERENCES

Books :
Holsti, K.J., and M. Tahir Azhary (1988) Politik Internasional Kerangka untuk Analisis. 2nd Volume. Jakarta : Penerbit Erlangga.

Kusumaatmadja, M., and Etty R. Agoes (2003) Pengantar Hukum Internasional. Bandung : Penerbit PT. Alumni.

Kusumohamidjojo, Dr. Budiono (1987) Hubungan Internasional Kerangka Studi Analisis. Bandung : penerbit Binacipta

Perwita, Dr. A.A. Banyu, and Dr. Yanyan Mochammad Yani (2005) Pengantar Ilmu Hubungan Internasional. Bandung : PT. Remaja Rosdakarya

Websites :
Chapter Three of Indonesia Defence White Paper, Konteks Strategis, http://www.dephan.go.id/buku_putih/bab_iii.htm, accessed at Januari 21st, 2008.

Chapter four of Indonesia Defence White Paper, Perkiraan Ancaman dan Kepentingan, http://www.dephan.go.id/buku_putih/bab_iv.htm, accessed at Januari 21st, 2008.

Peredaran Senjata Api di Sulawesi Tengah, Arianto Sangaji, http://ytm.or.id/pdf/ketasposisi4.pdf, accessed January, 21st 2008.

Ralf Emmers, The Threat of Transnational Crime in Southeast Asia : Drug trafficking, Human Smuggling and Trafficking, and Sea Piracy. http://www.ucm.es/info/unisci/Ralf.pdf, accessed at January 21st, 2008.

Suara Merdeka Dari Balim Selatan http://ismail-asso.blogspot.com, accessed at January 22nd 2008.

Organisasi Papua Merdeka http://www.geocities.com/opm-irja/main4.htm, accessed January 22nd 2008.

Penyelundupan Senjata, http://www.kapanlagi.com/h/0000126851.html, accessed January 22nd 2008

http://www.jurnalnet.com/konten.php?nama=BeritaUtama&topik=1&id=1198. accessed January 22nd 2008

http://www.dephan.go.id/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2325 accessed January 22nd 2008

http://www.sejarahtni.mil.id/index.php?show=script&cmd=loadnews&newsid=2127 accessed in January 22nd, 2008. accessed January 22nd 2008

http://www.iansa.org/regions/asiapacific/asiapacific.htm, accessed January, 21st 2008.

Leave a comment »

THE VIEW OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE IN THREE PARADIGMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Luke Pramudita

Abstraction
The emerging concept of global governance has developed for more than a decade after post-Cold War period. It has gone from the abstract topic to the central themes in the study of international affairs at this time. Nowadays, the concept of global governance is still debated between three major theorist of each paradigms : realist, liberal, and radical. This essay might help to view how the three paradigms in international relations look at the global governance concept. Here writer want to analyze how should global governance looked.

Introduction
Nowadays every side in international relations has changed because of the event called globalization. In globalization era we may see the increasing role and connection between all actors at international relations (IR law subject). The globalization itself means the condition whereby social relations acquire relatively distanceless and borderless qualities, so that human lives are increasingly played out in the world at the single place1. From this passage we may conclude that globalization made the world (international society) more conducted and organized on the basis of this universe.
Understanding phenomena of globalization growth, peoples may think to have mechanism to keep the process of globalization work as good as possible. The theorists of international relations at these time have analyzed this issue and one of the idea (came from the liberals) was developing new forms of collective action (between IR actors) under the rubric of global governance2.
Without want to agree or disagree about this liberals view, writers just want to view what is the global governance means in some definition from the theorists. There writers pointed out the basic explanation of global governance from many sources:

“Global governance is the establishment and operation of social institutions….capable of resolving conflicts, facilitating cooperation, or more generally alleviating collective action problems in a world of interdependent actors3.”

“Global governance is the cooperative establishment, promotion, or restoration of order, usually under conditions of consensus among the leading members of the international community4.”

“Global governance can defined as the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is the continuing process through which conflict or diverse interests may be accommodated5.”

From all of these explanation above writers can include the global governance is the frameworks between actors (government or non-government, public or private) to look at the international problems together and continuously. But global governance can’t be catch as global government. Global governance is the mechanism how IR actors can accommodate theirself, not government in real context so it called government above the government and all IR actors. James Rosenau explain it clearly with the passage below :

“Global governance not mean global government, it is embraces governmental institutions, but also subsumes informal, non-governmental mechanism whereby persons and organizations within its purview move ahead, satisfy their needs, and fulfill their wants. That means global governance implies examination of various governance activities, from formal to informal, from law to rules to understandings, at a variety of locales. It is not the hierarchical approach of world government6.”

What writer have mention above is the little and basic view of liberal theorists about global governance. The question now is what about the other theorists (realist and radicals) view the global governance?
We have known the three paradigms in international relations: realist, liberal, and radical. Each concept content different way to explain the phenomena of international relations. In briefs there is the view of each paradigms: realists look that the main actor in IR is state, and the focus of every state is struggle for power so the system in this world is confused and very anarchy, sometimes there are conflicts or war between states; liberal look that the main actor in IR are states and non-states actor that related one and another, the system in this world is anarchy but it still peace because they try to find the peace way to solve the problem; radical look that the main actor in IR are states and non-states actor which compete one and another, the system in this world is anarchy and there is classification and hierarchical between them7.
Back to the global governance view, the theorists of each paradigm also see it in different view based on their theory. They look in different way each factor include the substations in global governance: the role of international law and the organization of global governance8. This is the focus of the debate between the theorists.

The Global Governance View Based on Liberals
As what writer have tell before that the concept of global governance firstly came from the liberals, here writer just want to give more attention to the attitude from liberals look at the global governance.
Actually liberals are agree with the concept of global governance. They think that there must be an effective mechanism to forward the international problems in this world so there will be peace resolution without take extreme action (war and intervention). The traditional liberals have said that mechanism of global governance should be done with the unity of states in this world so it can hold together to cooperate international problems. Like what Grotius said, “States is like a peoples who basically rational, law abiding, and also capable of achieving cooperative goals9.” That means although states has the sovereignty by theirself they can unite and cooperate as an organization. This Grotian opinion inspire the traditional liberals and modern liberals (neo liberals) as their principal about the global governance.
What about the form of global governance? Liberals think that global governance have organization shape like United Nations at this time. As we know before that United Nations has the ability to unite every states in this world, made them organized in one body and the most important is can arrange the world so it seems like governance above state governance. Beside the UN neo liberals also add the other actors like IGO’s and NGO’s as the part of the system of global governance. However, at this time their role are more important and sometimes they work more effective than states in global view.

The Global Governance View Based on Realist and Radicals
Actually the realists and radicals are skeptical about both topic of global governance that serve by liberals10. For them there are many question that not appropriate with their theory and logic. There writer will classify the explaining of global governance into their own logical:
a. Realist
Realist as we know before are the opposite of liberals. They are really critics the concept of global governance at all. Liberals view the global governance as the unity of the international relations actors which controlled by mechanism above them, but realist that only recognize states as the the main actors in international relations view that states cannot united because they have their own national interest that difficult to united. One opinion that explained why realist push away the liberals view is with mechanism of global governance it means that states should give their sovereignty to be arranged in one governance.
How about the international law that limit the sovereignty of each sates? Realist look it in different way again. For realist, state decision to follow the international law is because of they choose to follow it (based on their national interest). They need it to keep their region saved from international intervention and the others state power. It is just strategy not the state conscious11.
Than talking about UN and international organizations, realist just explain it simple with statement, ‘If UN works effectively why until this time there are still problems between many states?” Realist think that with or without UN, the condition of international system still the same; anarchy. These statement can be evidence with the follow of USA in every problems in this world (whereas who is USA? What is her capacity so he can follow in every states problem?). Realist look that there is better make state peace with balance of power and deterrence than unite in organization like UN.
b. Radicals
Same with realist, radical also view global governance is not appropriate with the Marxist theory of capitals12. For them with the coming of global governance the structure of classification between 1st world and 2nd or 3rd world are vague.
The existion of UN also asked by the Radicals. Their basic question is, “If UN work without differ the states why until now there can’t find the similar economic growth between UN member?” There may be truth infact this time the international system inclined to western states (the colonial former). There still differentiation from colonial era until now.

Conclusion : Let’s View the Global Governance Concept Again
If we discuss again the concept of global governance viewed by liberals, realist, and radicals maybe there will never end because their basic logical and theory are very different. We also can’t take summary conclusion between definition from their debates.
Now, let’s viewed global governance in new paradigm (situation) that can be solved and closed with the definition: logicals. The global governance like what writer told before is a mechanism to govern all actors in international relations to unite as the international society. The concept of governance here is not same with government in fact. Governance just mean mechanism to work not means government that above the other government (states).
What it does mean? It means that global governance is a temporary conditions in international relations. It can happens every times in this world without any needs of sovereignty and structural organization. This means that global governance is free coalition to overcome problems together. The example is when the world look about the AIDS disease. In situation like that the way to overcome the AIDS problem is not come from the states but also the others international actors. This is international responsibilities. We may see that not only states which try to solve this but also NGO’s etc. This relation is the meaning of global governance.
Talking about UN is it global governance? Writer conclude that UN is not global governance but just international governance. It is because the members of UN is not all actors of IR but just states in this world.

—end—

Bibliography :
Perwita, Anak A.B.P, and Yanyan Mochamad Yani. 2005. Ilmu hubungan Internasional. Bandung: Rosda
Barnett, Michael, and Raymon Duvall. 2005. Power In Global governance. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
Baylish, John, and Steve Smith. 1998. The Globalization of World Politics. United kingdom : Oxford University Press

Leave a comment »

Analisis Ketergantungan Ekonomi Brazil Terhadap Pinjaman Dana Internasional (1970-1990)

Oleh : Luke Pramudita

  1. PENDAHULUAN

Terjadinya krisis ekonomi di Brazil pada periode 1970-1990 merupakan fenomena internasional yang sangat mengemuka pada masanya. Pada saat itu situasi ekonomi dunia sedang terguncang akibat naiknya harga minyak dunia. Negara-negara di seluruh dunia mengalami krisis akibat regulasi yang dikeluarkan oleh OPEC selaku organisasi negara-negara pengekspor minyak dunia. Tanpa terkecuali, perekonomian nasional Brazil turut terkena imbas dari kenaikan harga minyak ini.

Sebagai negara yang roda kehidupannya ditopang oleh industri, Brazil tidak kuasa untuk membatasi kebutuhan industri nasionalnya terhadap minyak. Oleh karena itu untuk mengatasi masalah ini Brazil meminjam dana dari berbagai institusi internasional dan bank-bank swasta untuk menjalankan kembali roda perekonomiannya di bidang industri.

Tak disangka sebelumnya keadaan dunia tidak berubah pada tahun-tahun berikutnya dan kondisi perekonomian Brazil semakin parah akibat hutang luar negeri yang menumpuk berikut bunga yang cukup besar. Perekonomian Brazil hancur dengan tingkat inflasi 175% dan hutang luar negeri sejumlah USD 86 Milyar (kondisi yang sangat jauh berbeda dengan Brazil pada tahun 1960an dimana angka pertumbuhan ekonominya mencapai 10%). Permasalahan hutang Brazil terus berlanjut hingga tahun-tahun berikutnya dan sampai sekarang Brazil tidak bisa lepas dari jeratan hutang tersebut.

Berangkat dari latar belakang ini penulis akan mencoba menjelaskan apa saja faktor yang mengakibatkan Brazil mengalami ketergantungan ekonomi terhadap hutang luar negeri.

  1. ANALISIS

Untuk menganalisis kasus ketergantungan negara Brazil terhadap hutang luar negeri akan penulis jelaskan dalam matriks berikut:

UNIT EKSPLANASI

Individu

(Presiden)

Negara

(Kondisi Brazil)

Sistem Intrnasional

Negara (Brazil)

1

2

3

UNIT

ANALISA

Penjelasan:

Pada matriks di atas dapat diketahui bahwa unit analisa yang akan diteliti adalah negara (Brazil) sedangkan unit eksplanasi yang memungkinkan adalah individu, negara, maupun sistem internasional. Kasus ketergantungan ekonoi Brazil terhadap hutang luar negeri jelaslah sangat berhubungan dengan sistem internasional dan kondisi negara, sehingga dalam angka urutan prioritas penulis memberikan prioritas tertinggi pada level sistem internasional.

Dari penjelasan di atas maka analisis yang diajukan penulis adalah sebagai berikut :

    1. Unit analisa kasus : ketergantungan ekonomi Brazil terhadap pinjaman dana internasional pada tahun 1970-1990

    2. Unit eksplanasi : sistem internasional

    3. Faktor-faktor penyebab :

      1. Adanya lembaga keuangan internasional yang dapat memberikan pinjaman kepada negara seperti International Monetary Fund (IMF) dan bank-bank internasional

      2. Kondisi ekonomi dunia pada saat itu sangat labil dengan dinaikkannya harga minyak dunia oleh OPEC

      3. Tuntutan untuk segera mengembalikan hutang beserta bunganya dari IMF serta bank-bank internasional. Hal ini mengakibatkan Brazil harus memakai sistim buka lobang-tutup lobang untuk menutup hutangnya terdahulu dengan berhutang kepada pihak lain.

      4. Pasar ekspor produksi Brazil tidak menentu (mengkerut). Hal ini turut membuat Brazil tidak bias membayar hutang yang semakin besar.

      5. Penanam Modal Asing yang masuk ke Brazil sangat banyak ditunjang dengan regulasi modal asing dan nasionalisasi perusahaan yang dikeluarkan oleh pemerintah. Akibatnya Brazil harus berbagi hasil dengan PMA dan tidak bias membangun secara mandiri perekonomian negaranya.

      6. Situasi ekonomi internasional yang tak kunjung membaik.

  1. KESIMPULAN

Dari serangkaian analisis faktor yang menyebabkan ketergantungan Brazil terhadap bantuan asing dapat diambil kesimpulan bahwasanya faktor yang dominan yang mempengaruhi ketergantungan ekonomi Brazil adalah situasi internasional. Seperti yang telah dijelaskan di atas adanya lembaga keuangan internasional yang memiliki pelayanan pinjaman kepada negara membuat Brazil mau tak mau meminjam dana untuk meperbaiki kondisi ekonomi negarranya. Sayangnya situasi ekonomi internasional yang ada tidak mendukung kemapanan ekonomi Brazil yang membuatnya terus-menerus berhutang untuk tetap menjalankan aktifitas ekonomi nasionalnya. Hal inilah yang membuat Brazil sulit untuk lepas dari bantuan asing.

Comments (1) »