TIMES SQUARE BOMB THREAT: A revival of War on Terrorism

The incident that happened on May 3rd, 2010 shocked United States citizens and the rest of the world. Times Square, a major tourist site that visited by hundreds of people per day not only from US continental but also various place of the world, turned silent and chilled as trucks and wave of US officials, police, and bomb squad sealed the perimeter of potential bomb attack. The bomb was placed by, at the time of incident, unknown person on an SUV pathfinder that parked at the Time Square Boulevard. An eyewitness reported seeing a smoke out of the SUV and then called authorities which later handle the crisis.

After series of quick and precise investigation, US officials finally caught the perpetrator on May 5th 2010. He is Faisal Shazhad and easily described as a recent naturalized US citizen, a Pakistan immigrant that acquire himself an M.B.A, a decent job, a wife and two children and a fine suburban home. Before the incident he admitted to go to Pakistan region of Waziristan and trained by a Taliban to form a bomb which later placed it in US’s soil. He was caught in airport on his way to Dubai. Now the perpetrator is being held with no further trial and still under ongoing intensive investigation. US attorney claimed that Shahzad is closely related to Pakistani-Taliban that at the present time under constant fight with Pakistan force which assisted by the US military forces.

In looking the incident by the perspective of its cause and how US government applied measure for detention, a question arise on how the provision of the condition of “War on Terrorism” doctrine still exist, and whether such framework can still be well justified to be applied on US’ policies. On this essay writer would like to assess how internal measure of “war on terrorism” can actually give a blow to US internal security instead and blur the vision of creating security for its own citizens. And also such policy is still well suitable for US to maintain its own security by the facts of ongoing threat that the country keep experienced through time to time. 

To analyze how US government applies a measure to curb terrorism, is by looking the framework that proposed by Seumas Miller in his book “terrorism and counter-terrorism: ethics and liberal democracy”. In dealing with the issue of terrorism in internal security, a country can apply two frameworks in which those frameworks have its own cost. First is the liberal-democratic –at-peace framework. This framework applied to curb terrorism by the use of healthy police enforcement which has an independent position inside the government (in order to avoid totalitarian government). The presume terrorists are arrested and held proper trial to achieve justice. But then this framework, in reality, would result a violation of liberal-democratic values. This happened as the officials actually applied harsh restriction to terrorist suspect, such as probing, limitation on their rights, and other acts that are not aligned with liberal values.

Those violations in turn can be legitimized by the whole population, even the rest of the world, if a country applied the second framework. This framework called as liberal-democratic-at-war scheme. This framework requires the government to declare war on the threat of terrorism and acts that above mentioned would in turn be accepted. Such condition was practically enjoyed by the Bush administration after the 11/9 attack. US certainly blame terrorists and countries that give certain protection to the terrorist and spelled out the “axis of evil” doctrine. Therefore US can start advancing attacks right to the terrorists’ main source, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, with the US preemptive strike initiation.

Entering the Obama administration, many people including writer personally begin to doubt whether the measure of war scheme has been affective and a precise policy to curb terrorism. The ineffective itself can be seen externally with little impact on terrorists’ expansions on Middle East region and its constant threat to the world. US iraq’s policy turned out ineffective and left many of bad memories instead of good ones. Also the US’s Afghanistan policy where it had wastes billions of dollar and resulting into many displacements of Afghanistan citizens. Domestically it also has cost the US big amount of money that resulted into budget deficits and ignites recessions.

What mostly severe, as writer perceived, is the ineffective policy that seen domestically in the US. The Times Square bomb threat is an example of many examples where some aware US citizens turn into radical path against their own government. You name it; the existence of Jihad Jane, or the shootings at police official in front of Pentagon Building last year where the perpetrator killed himself, and also recently the Times Square incident itself. These were the prove that US citizens itself has started to show certain disapproval towards US policies, especially the previous administration’s harsh policy towards terrorism that undermine human rights and freedom.

To be clear let us see the incident by looking through the suspect’s perspective. Shazhan swore his oath last year with pride and engulfed with overwhelming vision of the true American dream when he held the green card, a card which many immigrants has been longed for. But suddenly US began to declare that they suspect of Taliban expansion into the North Waziristan, a place that he called home before he immigrated to US. He felt betrayed by his own country and later defected to fight alongside the Taliban in principal. This proven by the fact released from CNN that Shahzad went to Pakistan and actually asks for help to commit the attack. This neglected the previous belief of Shahzad was doctrined and pushed by the Taliban to commit the attack.

Writer would never say what Mr. Shahzan did is true in the sense of humanity, but by the story that illustrated above, US can see its own mistake that sparks further threat based on harsh measure on its own foreign policy. It boosted the hatred that potentially provoked by circumstances. There are hundreds immigrants or even normal US citizens that are Mr. Shahzan alike which felt betrayed by their country. Although they would not go as radical as Mr.Shahzan, they will start to doubt their nationalism to the US. They started to doubt whether invading other country by the means of self-protection is morally justified. As we all know the presence nationalism, that resemblance of a love for a country is a critical aspect to sustain the structure of nation. But the US government has yet seen this as a potential threat and it still apply the second framework of liberal-democratic-at-war scheme, where the whole nation is pushed to admit that terrorists are real and perpetrator of terrorism would have to be given harsh measure with no trials and no proper justice. This can cause bad effect to the diverse US citizens as they can direct their opinion towards different base, and start pulling some conspiratory arguments towards their own government.

Therefore if the present US government is still uphold the plan to reshape their image to the international world, also domestically; it is time for US to start return back for deploying liberal-democratic-at-peace principles and guarantee human rights and justice for all. Becoming too paranoid and draw early conclusion on terrorist relation can cause anger and frustration by its fellow citizens. Because there are some, if not many, US immigrants that starting to feel betrayed and wronged by the path of US policies. Peace has always been the goal for US policy, and it is time to find new approach to construct and maintain peace domestically, because the main threat by the example of Times Square incident is sourced from US’s soil itself. It is important to start to see the solution not by dealing with its aftermath, but to also dig deep on reasons of why such alarming act happened. The reasons of the feeling of betrayed or disagreement to US policies by immigrants can reflect the path to which US itself should invent in the future, in order to ensure that such act will never happened again in the future.

Factors that Shaped International Business Culture

In the 21s century era, international business has been the backbone of international and global economy. As we can see that various companies throughout the world exist and providing diverse form of goods and services, starting from banking, finance, insurance, transportation, IT provider, hotel, and other countless form of  business , creating lots of differentiated products. We are seeing the nature of international business has turned into fast-paced, organized, cross-border, and efficient as the time evolves.

Business culture has become diverse as the actor comes from various sets of culture. For example, we can see European companies have offices in China and producing goods that shipped to various place around the globe. We can also see goods that are produced miles away from where we are becoming essential to our very life, such as phones, computers, and automobiles. International business has becoming massive and efficient. Mostly we do not even recognize where this certain products of finance or goods are originated from because it no longer important, what matters is the cost and quality that it offers.  

Why do this strings of phenomenon happened in our very eyes? What actually shaped this fast-paced, efficient, and massive international business as it is now? This essay would provide insights on how the present international business culture is shaped, through principal and historical view that can give explanation on how international business culture profoundly shaped in the present condition.

            Freedom as Starting Point

            What basis that shaped the international business culture in the present days is the existence of individual’s freedom.  The first principle of freedom is that each person owns himself that enables them to react and act according to his freedom-will.[1] As Friedrich Hayes emphasized that “freedom can be preserved only if it is treated as a supreme principle which must not be sacrificed for any particular advantage”[2]. This underlined how important the freedom is as it gives full liberty to individual to expand their wealth and well being by doing economy transactions. This “liberty” becomes the main basis of liberalism; a perspective that mostly dominates the world’s economic view nowadays.

            Sense of individual freedom in economy did not fully recognize until the 18^th century. Before the 18^th century, individual freedom is hardly to be achieved as state and kingdoms fully controlled the growth and transfer of capital among the society. Based on this limitation, great thinkers of libertarian, such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Locke started to pour ideas about individual rights of freedom. They believe that individual should be free to act, away from the control of state which, as they perceived, tends to manipulate and abusing power and in result limit the rights for individuals to achieve their well-being and maximum capabilities.[3]

            Based on individual freedom, many liberals believe in the nature of the market as laissez-faire, or “let be”, where individual set their economic transaction without strong intervention from the state. The market will act on its own and acquire its own mechanism; acting as an “invincible hand” solve markets problem and guaranteeing its continuity. This happened because there is demand-supply mechanism where individuals would concentrate to fulfill the demand of the market by offering goods and services and acquire profits in return.  

Liberal also believe in competitiveness as a key to enhance economy activities of society to becoming quality-oriented, and eliminating the risk of absolute power among society. Competitiveness pushes the producers to sacrifice some of their power in order to stay in tuned with market’s demands. Keynesian liberalism (which developed in 1960’s) added up the role of government or state in ensuring the ongoing market process. Government or state in this case, has a role to make sure that basic need of society is fulfilled and facilitate individuals to do their economy activity.

Entering the 19^th centuries, individuals start to create enterprises and allegiance among other to consolidate capital. This marking the birth of modern companies and corporation that produces with certain production of goods and services. Companies has freedom to assess their capital and produce any goods and services that market needed, not just local but also international.  

Globalization and Interdependence

            The existence of freedom does give a basis line to bolster business among society as the form of economic activity in order to generate wealth.  Mutual cooperation and benefits between producers and consumers drives economic relations among individual to increase. But it does not explain why it becomes “international” and “cross-border” in a larger picture where there are world-wide connections in the business world with various forms. There are two main aspects that are very essential in shaping international business and its culture to become more trans-national.

            First, international businesses exist and bolstered by the growing interdependence among state and its society around the world. The concept of interdependence began to be examined in the 1970s, and scholars believe that there are two major changes in the global economy. First, states and its society become more interdependent across variety of issue and areas, starting from consumer goods and security. Second, decision-making by state on its own economy becomes weaken as there are various rising of strong multinational corporation that can contribute in economy policy making. State no longer can adopt certain policy without viewing the condition of its own private sector. This causes increases the flow of transnational capital.[4]

            Interdependence make a state cannot operate its own economy without other support that offer goods, services, and capital it needed. Theoretically, this was supported by David Ricardo’s law of “comparative advantage”, where a state provides the goods and services that others need while other provides the same in return, this applied in terms of value-added production or natural recourses. Growing scarcity of certain resources also increased the interdependence. Therefore international economy interaction is based on specialization of production because a state will have to find its own economy advantage among other states in order to gain profit and benefit. For example, we would know where to find quality form of textile imports that is also cheap from China, or quality services of information technology from India with their high-skill human resources. This form of interdependence increase awareness of private sector to develop their specialization, thus create diversity of production in the international business sphere.

            The second factor is globalization. The fall of Soviet Union in 1991, marked the official start of modern globalization. An ideological boundary that has divide the world for more than forty years has no longer limits the flow of capital and shrouded the world with fear. Francis Fukuyama, an international relations scholar, define globalization not so far related to TV sets and McDonalds, which also marked “the end of history” as the world comes fully integrated in democracy and freedom in applying businesses around the globe. Information technology changes the business culture deeply and dramatically from local to global, changing how business is done. Especially the existence of internet pushes international business to become fast-paced, limitless, and efficient.

            States and governments also gives response to the globalization by deregulate obstacles that limits trade and businesses. Governments of various states agreed upon the existence of World Trade Organizations (WTO) that provides institutional facilitations to decrease theses limitations, such as tariff, quota, and other regulation that may troubled the process of trade and international business. Various free-trade agreement across continents as well as regional agreement are prove how states begun to acknowledge the importance of international trade, because it gives opportunities for society and national private sector in achieving various goods as well as expanding economy condition to the bigger extent.

            Financial and Technical Development

            Globalization has given space for businesses to expand through wide extent of networks, but what also matter is the tool to assess this world-wide range connections of businesses. What writer perceived as the main supporting factor as tools for  international business is the development of financial sector and technical development of goods transfer, such as shipping lines, packaging.

Conclusion

            As we can see that the existence of individual freedom, globalization, and the increase of interdependence shaped international business culture. But as writer see it, in the future time, competitiveness and creativity also become one of the outcome of the conditions that brought by globalizations. The world will become more and more competitive, therefore international business culture will be fully based on efficiency, quality-oriented, and fast-paced. When there are so many diverse form of same productions, producers would have to become unique in order to gain market’s interest and gain profits. Changes in the market can happened by second, as the rush of information can happened very fast that changes market behavior in very fast time.

---

[1] Dennis O’Keeffe, Economy and Virtue: Essays on the Theme of Markets and Morality, (Westminster: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 2004), p.

[2] Friedrich Hayek, “Principles and Expediency”, in Chaiki Nishiyama and Kurt R. Leube (eds), The Essence of Hayek, (Stanford: Hoover Institute Press, 1984), p. 301.

[3] Balaam, Vesseth, Introduction to Political Economy 3^rd Edition, (New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2005), p.46-67

[4] Griffiths, O’Callaghan, International Relations: The Key Concepts, (London: Routledge, 2002) p. 157-158.

Global Civil Society in The Contemporary World

At the end of twentieth century, human society had begun to witness historic transformation that for the first time it is possible to describe comprehensive networks of social relationship that includes all people around the world.  With the end of Cold War, moreover, various international institutions are beginning to become instruments of global order. This create the clear vision of society that covers all people globally and brings a new dynamics under the view of International Relations discipline as global society has becoming more imminent actor in international relations. Therefore this review would like to explore the definition of global society, and what challenges that it brings to the well established believe of political-centric and economic-centric perspective, as well as its limitations.

            Origins of Global Civil Society        

The term of global civil society need to be defined thoroughly by the explanation of global society in it bases to be able to grasp the understandings. The term ‘Society’ in many senses used in many dimension, but it basically resemblance social relations. The term of society is a fundamental concept of sociology and can disseminate into wide range of definition, but to the sense of global society is too see that the world has transformed into a single society. Such transformation nevertheless exists by the process of globalization. Globalization has breaking the old sense of national society and to let world population to develop new form of idea of a plural society with multiple identities.

            Then to explain how the global society integrated is by seeing the globalization process. The fact that systemic integration of global society has not been clearly visual, and some critics had said that the global society would be unlikely to produce certain common value and beliefs, as well as common agreed institutions. But there are growing facts that signify the growing cultural developments produced by globalizations which shaped the term of “global culture” as inter-cultural and inter economic processes happens between society inside states and become more easier and borderless. It means that in terms of diversity, variety, and richness of popular and local discourses, to realize that the image of globe as a single place and allows generative form of unity within which diversity can take place.

            The perception of global society can lead into the awakening of realization of the global crisis existence that damaged the world. These crisis such as poverty, human rights issues, environmental issues, and many other crises. Such crises can be affecting inter-state relation and the conditions can became global. As the globe become one place in the perception of people, one’s problem may as well affect everyone.

Many global systemic development where borders of state has no longer limits, such as global communication system such as the fact of how media can broadcasts across globe, as well as global cultural system which consist of growing homogeneity of cultural norms and values across the globe. What also increases is the growing existence of global civil society which will be explained further on.        

Global Civil Society

            The term of civil society always differentiated to the definition of state and considered to be. Gramsci have seen civil society in terms of the way in which society outside the state organizes and represent itself, forming both source of pressure and the extension of the state and it constituted by institutions. Then how exactly global civil society can be existed? It has connection with greater worldwide recognition of global interdependence ever since Cold War ended in 1989. The interdependence introduce global consciousness that play great role in the awakening of global civil society. Global civil society also existed by the realizing that global crises were there to be fought and voiced out in order to solve it by act in society level, such as humanitarian crisis, injustice, environmental issues, etc.

            Global civil society is coming into existence in an interdependent relationship with the state system. The increase of interaction between local and national societies with other socities abroad brings the connection between people getting closer. Therefore it is easy to come up with certain goal and interest which later on that large sum of people agreed to form an institution that accommodate idealistic idea of what’s good for the society and mostly against the status quo. Thus Global civil society represents social interests and principle which may contradictory of the state’s interest or those of the market’s. Therefore it may constitute certain pressure to state policy as well as status quo of market condition.

            It is noted that because the increase of global civil society, transnational identity has becoming important for most of people in the world. Global civil society formed institutions which regularly called as International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) and it opens up branch and working group all around the world to gather support and increase awareness of general society. With this, although still not surpass the national identity, some individual has put their principle and vision that agreed transnationally into their identity. The growth is still undergone progressive phase.

            Recently INGOs has started to play important role in determining the direction of international policies and has made its way to the negotiating table as United Nations, the biggest International Organizations that consists of states, let INGO participate into the discussion. Clark analyzes the substantive effect of INGO participation in United Nations world conference of Environment, Human Rights, and Women. It is noted that there’s no denying how the INGO’s presence and issues form an integral part of UN thematic conferences[1]. Furthermore, as the coming of 1990s, governmental perspective about INGOs had been realigned and their willingness to accommodate INGO participation has been increasing. The increase of NGO-to-NGO relations and cooperation also bolster the progress of vocal out their interest to world and narrowing distance on certain substantive issues.

            Challenges and Limitations

            The challenges would be that the perspective of state still, as Clark analyzes, calculating their interest instead of cultivating the NGO’s interests. It is true that the states’ responses corresponded with NGO’s mobilization, but such responsiveness does not mean acceptance.[2] To include and negotiate with NGOs, states still acts in incentive-motivated act, for example to appoint NGO to apply international agreement. While on the other hand NGO’s interest still remained imprisoned and limited, therefore the most challenges come from the traditional roles and priorities of international politics.

            In another literature, Chandake explained the critics that becoming the limit of INGO. In the context of norms and value that most INGO brought to surface, criticized mostly by Third World countries and other critical thinkers, still reflect that narrow group of influential states in the international order.[3] This happens particularly in human rights issues, which are considered to be embedded in a set of norms and historical process specific to Western and the US. Yet again it is not the main issue as there are many of global civil societies that fought for certain privilege that still cannot be achieved by some people when it should all be given to all people.

            The strength of global civil society comes from the will to reform certain injustice. In the context of capitalism, global civil society would assess protests and critics to increase awareness in order the stakeholder to humanize the capitalist system rather than think of another system that may be able to deliver justice and equity. Therefore it is also a big burden for global civil society to come up with good alternative and not just to spell out critics with no good advice and real actions.

            Analysis

            The development of global civil society follows the same pattern as what humankind witness of the state development and economical development in the world. Writer believes that the latter development has just reached its early phase and it is evident that the presence of global civil society is here to stay. As the global consciousness increased and awareness of global crises has become imminent, the presence of global civil society would be very important to accommodate certain aspiration and principle in which the state and common market do not perceive as important and beneficial. State are too political motivated in making policies and market tends to be profit-motivated in the process, therefore the presence of global civil society can bring balance to the arena.  

              Under the International Relations discipline context, the notion of global and transnational society that represents by NGO’s brings new dynamics. It certainly could enrich its perspective in viewing world phenomenon in a new way, not just far too dependent to the descriptions of the classics. Globalization and globalized awareness can certainly brings new dynamics to the reality, and as a science International Relations should have put the developments of reality into science, therefore new actor such as global civil society should be taken into account, proven by how significant the global civil society affects UN decisions and the directions of world’s policies.

            The challenges that global civil society faced such as critics and limit for authority, existed as what the global civil societies can be overcome by consistency in voicing out the critics and awareness for state and regular society of crises and issues that happened in the world. Interconnection between global civil societies can be a way to consolidate power and leverage against other contending actors. The high number of participants, donor, and sympathy from society can give global civil society leverage. After all, state or government as we know it; is existed by the will of its people, therefore state shall be obliged to hear and consider what their people’s thoughts and need.

---

[1] Clark, Ann Marie, Friedman, and K. Hochstetler, “The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil Society: A Comparison of NGO Participation in UN World Conferences on Environment, Human Rights, and Women”, in World Politics, vol. 51, no.1, 1998, p.1-35.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Chandake Neera, The Limits of Global Civil Society.

European Union Environmental Foreign Policy on Indonesia

The last United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Party (COP) 15 in Copenhagen did not go as many had expected it would be. One of he major International actor that plays important role on promoting concise awareness and mechanism about the need to act for climate protection act is the European Union. It is with great utmost curiosity, Embassy-Space visited the EU Commission Representative in Indonesia to ask around on how Copenhagen meeting stands out under the EU perspective, and to what extent EU work their policy and foreign policy in pursue goal of climate mitigation effort around the globe, to be particular in Indonesia itself. The visit held on February 4, 2010 with the assistance of Mr. Thibault Duvall, the head of Development Division of EU Commission Representative for Indonesia.

Internally, EU has finally achieved single political will to tackle climate change by reducing green gas emission up to 20% in 2020. This in fact is an ambitious target that makes EU as the most vocal regional organization that voiced out climate change mitigation. This agreement brought EU a solid stance in the Copenhagen meetings. In the international domain EU has main objectives to gives mutual assistance in the form of financial, technical, and advisory to the developing nation in order to embark the effort of climate change mitigation.

However there was a discourse when it comes to the international debate of how to find exact mechanism that could legally binds all party. Most countries came up with different base line and focuses, as well as still conform their own interest instead of sharing the same vision. Most party that comes from civil society as well as media began to criticize the meeting as unfruitful. But when it came to the last session of discussion done by head of states, a non-legally binding accord was made with several commitments from various major states such as USA, China, and Russia. The points of the accord are to agree of maximum increase of earth temperature would be only 2 degree Celsius, reduction targets for developed and developing states are to be enlisted, monitoring, reporting, and verifications, as well as review to be completed in 2015. Yet again the result is non-legally binding which can pose as problematic, but depends on how we see it, this could also mean a progress as there are some countries that has shown their political will to tackle climate change.

On this case EU sees that it might be really hard to achieve full consensus under UNFCCC as there are too many members with many demands and interests, therefore EU also actively engage on bilateral cooperation with states around the globe along with society-level of approach to increase awareness of climate change issue. Based on this policy, Indonesia comes up as a very strategic partner for EU. Firstly that EU is in the awe by the Indonesian Government commitment to reduce 15% of emission, as what had been mentioned by SBY, the Indonesian President, during the Copenhagen meeting. According to what Indonesian government had expected that the financial aid is really needed for Indonesia to mitigate climate change, EU has funded at least twelve environmental projects arranged by both Indonesian State’s department, as well as Civil Society around Indonesia. Deforestation, illegal logging, and other mishap are expected to stop in Indonesia.

There are several obstacle and challenges that EU faced in advancing its environmental foreign policy to Indonesia. First EU realizes that there is still lack of coordination of policy with the central and provincial government which limits the policy effectiveness regarding environmental protections. SBY had promised that the number of fund that Indonesia needed to fully apply emission reduction is exceeds to 30 billion dollar only can be effective if there is transparency in developing strategy and technology to emission reduction as well as natural preservation, and also to create clear measurement to monitor Indonesia’s achievements. There are still lacks of awareness about the importance of environment in several rural areas of Indonesia, such as in Riau, Papua, and other regions that filled with forests. The above obstacles can only be overcome if there is fully cooperation between EU and Indonesia to meet the goals.

Embassy-Space also questioned about the notions of clear transfer technology mechanism between developed and developing nations as to clear extent that technology plays important role in order states to achieve environmental and emission reduction target. But Mr. Thibault reckoned that this is still a problematic issue and still undergone a debate. The problem lies on the intersection between World Trade Organization’s rules about technological patent, as that most technological advance own by private sector that unwilling to give their technology for free to the developing world. This shown how market and private sector still has to be assured to act accordingly to the vision of tackling climate, because if the action was too late and consequences would be severe.

Based on our discussion, Embassy-Space noted that EU is nevertheless an important partner for Indonesia, it just now depends on how we take the advantage to it and not wasting and stalling the effort.

Justifikasi Preemptive Strike Amerika Serikat dalam Hukum Internasional untuk Penanganan Ancaman Perdamaian: Sejarah dan Perkembangan

Keadaan dunia dan konstelasi perpolitikan dunia berubah secara dinamis pada abad 21 memberikan dampak signifikan pada kaidah hukum internasional. Dinamisnya perubahan yang terjadi menciptakan banyak tantangan baru yang menuntut kaidah-kaidah hukum internasional yang telah disepakati sejak lama untuk dapat beradaptasi dengan kondisi yang ada di masyarakat dunia. Amerika Serikat (AS) telah sekian lama memberikan banyak justifikasi aksi pembelaan diri sebagai interpretasi hukum internasional. Hal ini menciptakan pertanyaan bagaimana langkah AS dan dasar justifikasi aksi militer terhadap external threat atau ancaman eksternal yang mengancam baik kepentingan AS juga perdamaian dunia, seperti senjata pemusnah massal dan isu sedang berkembang, terorisme.

Oleh karena itu review kali ini ingin menggali bagaimana justifikasi aksi militer AS dalam alasan self-defence dengan cara serangan antisipatoris atau preemptive strike lewat kekuatan militer diakuisisi oleh hukum internasional secara interpretatif dan bagaimana doktrin-doktrin yang mendukung hal tersebut terbentuk untuk mendukung aksi militer yang dilancarkan.

Sebagai dasar, Piagam Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa (PBB) telah menjadi acuan utama pedoman bagi negara-negara di dunia untuk melandasi legitimasi penggunaan angkatan bersenjata sebagai instrumen penyelesaian konflik. Interpretasi terhadapa piagam PBB selalu berkembang seiring berkembangnya situasi global. Pada awal pembentukannya tahun 1945, piagam PBB memiliki visi untuk pembentukan organisasi internasional (PBB) yang dapat mempertahankan perdamaian dan keamanan internasional dengan cara mendorong usaha kolektif untuk pencegahan dan penghapusan ancaman bagi perdamaian, dan untuk meredam aksi agresif atau segala aksi yang mengganggu perdamaian. Pendeklarasian piagam PBB menandakan munculnya limitasi terhadap aksi agresif unilateral dari negara untuk penyelesaian konflik internasional; karena perlu didasari asas kerjasama dan kesepakatan. Pengecualian hanya terdapat pada penggunaan kekuatan militer (use of force) untuk alasan pembelaan diri (self-defence) baik secara individual atau kolektif.

Tetapi memasuki era perang dingin, isu dan ancaman terorisme dan senjata pemusnah masal mulai muncul dan mengancam masyarakat di dalam negara secara frontal, terutama dengan memanfaatkan adanya pusat kehidupan dari masyarakat, seperti mall, gedung perkantoran, dll. Hal ini yang menyebabkan negara seperti Amerika Serikat mengubah kebijakannya terhadap terorisme menjadi lebih bersifat non-kompromis dan pendekatan proaktif pada era tahun 1980’s di bawah kepemimpinan Reagan dari kebijakan sebelumnya yang sifatnya lebih pasif. Hal tersebut menciptakan kebutuhan akan interpretasi baru untuk menjawab tantangan dunia.

Adanya adaptasi ini memunculkan persepsi-persepsi baru yang mendasari adanya penggunaan aksi militer sebagai respon dari ancaman eksternal. Salah satunya adalah redefinisi dhakikat self-defense atau pembelaan diri. Kajian mengenai interpretasi hukum banyak mengikuti pasal 51 piagam PBB yang berisi sebagai berikut:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council under the present Charter to take any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Pada pasal 51 piagam PBB tertera bahwa aksi self-defense dari suatu negara dapat dilakukan bila dinilai rasional dan penting ketika dihadapkan pada aksi agresi atau armed-attack ketika sebuah negara telah diserang lebih dahulu oleh kekuatan eksternal. Aksi pre-emptive strike atau serangan antisipatoris menjadi basis kuat menyokong aksi negara seperti Amerika Serikat untuk melakukan penyerangan militer. Pasal 51 mensignifikasikan bahwa legitimasi penyerangan militer atas dasar pembelaan diri dapat dilakukan ketika penyerangan telah dilakukan terlebih dahulu oleh pihak agresor. Tetapi pada kenyataannya poin ini memiliki unsur kompleksitas dalam interpretasinya.

Muncul tiga pendekatan dalam melihat pasal 51 tersebut. Pertama pendekatan Restrictionist, menyatakan bahwa aksi self-help dari negara untuk bereaksi pada serangan yang mengancam dapat dilakukan, sesuai eksepsi pasal 51, bila telah “benar-benar” diserang secara fisik. Kaum Restrictionist juga memberikan limitasi bahwa aksi self-defense dapat dilakukan suatu negara bila mendapat agresi dari negara lain, hal ini sesuai dari apa yang didefinisikan di awal pendirian PBB yang diakui negara penandatangan piagam. Kedua pendekatan counter-Restrictionist, mengadopsi persepsi ekspansionisme dan melihat aksi pasal 51 sebagai perlindungan bagi kedaulatan dan kemandirian negara, sehingga bila suatu negara merasa kedaulatannya terganggu oleh aksi agresif negara lain, dapat melakukan aksi militer terhadap negara yang mengancam meskipun ancaman belum mencapai level serangan fisik secara langsung. Piagam PBB dinilai memberikan banyak pengaplikasian kebiasan internasional (costumary law) sehingga aksi penggunaan militer sebagai bentuk ¬self-defence sebagai bagian dari kebiasaan internasional dapat dilakukan.

Hal ini didukungan oleh kriteria Caroline yang menyebutkan tingkat pentingnya self-defence harus instant, dengan kekuatan yang kuat, tanpa memberikan pilihan dan tujuan yang salah, serta aksi yang dipakai harus rasional dan tidak berlebihan. Kekerasan yang berlebihan akan menggoyahkan legalitas operasi yang didasari oleh alasan Self-Defence. Aksi Self-Defence harus memnuhi kriteria Neccesity, Immideacy,dan Proportionality.

Ketiga pendekatan Anticipatory Self-Defence, tercontohkan pada invasi Israel terhadap Iraq tahun 1981 dimana Israel mengambil tindakan antisipatoris dengan menyerang Iraq karena perilaku Iraq yang mengancam Israel dengan adanya persenjetaan pemusnah massal. Aksi inilah yang kemudian disebut sebagai pre-emprive strike. Tetapi komunitas dunia mengecam aksi pre-emptive dan khawatir bila dianggap legal maka struktur perdamaian dunia akan terancam.

Pada era 60-an hingga 80-an muncul interpretasi pasal 51 untuk menyembunyikan aksi retaliation atau aksi pembalasan dengan alasan self-defence. Interpretasi ini muncul setelah Inggris menyerang kota Harib di Yaman pada tahun 1964 karena pemerintah Yaman melakukan dukungan atas pemberontakan dan penyerangan pada Federasi Arab Selatan, aksi retaliasi tersebut dinilai illegal oleh Dewan Keamanan PBB. Juga aksi pemboman AS terhadap Libya tahun 1986 karena menilai Libya menyokong aksi teroris di Eropa yang banyak melukai warga negara AS. Aksi tersebut mendapat kecaman keras dari Majelis Umum PBB.

Memasuki akhir 80-an persepsi dunia akan penolakan aksi retaliasi mulai goyah karena masyarakat dunia mulai menyadari akan bahaya serangan teroris yang mulai mengancam dunia. Hal ini didukung oleh persepsi Presiden AS Ronald Reagan yang menandatangani draft strategi pertahanan nasional AS baru yang dikeluarkan oleh National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) yang pada intinya menyatakan bahwa AS memiliki tanggung jawab untuk lebih proaktif ketika muncul ancaman teroris yang dapat mengganggu kepentingan AS. Pernyataan ini sekaligus merangkum apa yang kemudian disebut “Reagan Doctrine” dan memperjelas bahwa aksi kontra terorisme dapat diikuti oleh penggunaan kekuatan militer. Selain itu muncul juga “Schultz Doctrine” yang berisikan bahwa aksi pertahanan aktif tidak hanya ditujukan pada kelompok teroris melainkan juga pada negara yang memberikan peluang dan dukungan pada munculnya gerakan terorisme.

Kedua doktrin ini digunakan oleh AS untuk melakukan serangan antisipatoris terhadap ancaman teroris seperti yang trjadi pada masa pemerintahan Presiden Bill Clinton yang mengakuisisi pengiriman rudal AS terhadap kamp teroris di Afghanistan dan Sudan. Walau mendapat kecaman publik, pemerintah AS tetap sepakat menyatakan bahwa hal ini perlu dan telah memenuhi kriteria Caroline, dimana aksi self-defence dapat dilakukan bila sangat perlu, rasional, dan proporsional.

Serangan 11 September menjadi titik tolak agresivitas AS untuk melakukan aksi antisipatoris dan akuisisi public internasional akan hal tersebut. Pasca tragedi 11 September, Dewan Keamanan PBB beserta Majelis Umum mengeluarkan Resolusi 56/1 tanpa voting untuk secara cepat membentuk kerjasama internasional untuk mencegah dan memberantas aksi terorisme serta menekankan bahwa pihak yang membantu dan mendukung aksi terorisme harus juga dihentikan. AS dipimpin Bush menyatakan bahwa pelaku serangan sebagai jaringan teroris internasional bernama Al-Qaeda dan pemberantasan terorisme tidak akan berakhir sebelum seluruh kelompok teroris di dunia ditumpas habis. Dewan Keamanan PBB dan organisasi internasional besar, termasuk Liga Arab, mendukung aksi pemberantasan terorisme dan menyatakan bahwa aksi terorisme merupakan pelanggaran hukum internasional.

Kemudian “Bush Doctrine” muncul yang menyatakan bahwa pertarungan harus dibawa kearah musuh, menghancurkan rencana mereka, dan menumpas sebelum ancaman serius muncul, karena serangan berat yang terjadi terhadap AS dikarenakan AS menunggu ancaman untuk menjadi serius sebelum menanganinya. Bush mengatakan, “now is the time this nation act”. Doktrin ini sekaligus memberi ancaman bagi Iraq dan negara lain untuk tidak mengembangkan senjata pemusnah massal. Hal ini yang mendasari invasi AS ke Iraq dan Afghanistan.

Penyerangan AS dan dukungan publik akan hal tersebut jelas memberikan paradigma baru dalam memberikan interpretasi pada hukum internasional. Serangan AS dapat dikategorikan sebagai sebuah aksi perang, aksi yang dahulu hanya dikenal sebagai bentuk interaksi antar negara, tetapi berubah tujuannya kepada aktor non-negara. Terorisme bukanlah lagi ancaman yang dapat ditangani oleh kekuatan domestik, melainkan telah bertranformasi menjadi ancaman internasional. Tetapi hasil dari invasi AS ke Irak telah banyak menimbulkan kontroversi dan keraguan karena didasari oleh justifikasi legal yang kurang pasti serta bukti-bukti yang tidak konkrit akan adanya senjata pemusnah massal yang dijadikan dasar invasi tersebut. Skeptisisme mengenai penyalahgunaan konsep self-defence banyak muncul dikalangan masyarakat internasional, sehingga apa yang sebelumnya diinginkan sebagai evolusi praktis interaksi negara menjadi penyalahgunaan wewenang kekuatan militer serta politik.

Pham dalam artikelnya mengutarakan adanyanya penyimpangan hukum internasional di era pasca serangan 11 September di AS. Pham memakai dasar persamaan legitimasi penggunaan kekuatan militer AS terhadap Iraq atas alasan terorisme dan senjata pemusnah masal, dengan aksi ekspansionis dari kekuatan imperialisme abad ke-19. Abad ke-19 muncul interpretasi tentang kedaulatan yang memberikan pembedaan kedaulatan bagi negara barat dengan negara non-barat yang pada kenyataannya mendapat bentuk kedaulatan parsial. hal ini juga yang mendasari pembetukan hukum internasional yang dinilai sebagai “universal” menjadi terorientasi pada perspektif dunia barat. Atas dasar itu posisi negara barat di abad ke-19 memiliki tingkatan yang lebih tinggi ketimbang negara non-barat, sehingga negara barat memiliki legitimasi untuk memberikan pengaruh kepada negara non-barat untuk menganut sistem yang sama dengan negara barat. Karya dari Fransesco de Vitoria banyak menyinggung hal ini dengan konsepsi “Just War” dimana negara barat dapat mengintervensi daerah lain yang dinilai less-civilized ketimbang negara barat, sehingga bentuk kolonialisme menjadi suatu hal yang terlegitimasi.

Konsepsi diatas merupakan alasan yang sama dengan munculnya doktrin Bush pada era pasca serangan 11 September. Aksi AS, berdasarkan pernyataan Bush, menegaskan bahwa bentuk koalisi AS dan sekutunya memiliki tujuan untuk menciptakan “Self-Government” yang dicapai melalui proses demokratis dan keteraturan. Resolusi 151 dari Dewan Keamanaan PBB merupakan hasil lobi AS untuk meyakinkan dunia internasional bahwa aksi intervensi ke Iraq merupakan hal yang diinginkan oleh masyarakat Iraq itu sendiri dan AS memberikan bantuan untuk mempercepat proses demokrasi tersebut. Alasan pendirian “Self-Government” AS ini memiliki fakta historis yang sama ketika AS mendirikan pemerintahan di Filipina yang hingga sekarang masih kuat berada di bawah pengaruh AS.

Aksi AS dibawah pemerintahan Bush memiliki kesamaan atas alasan yang melegitimasi aksi imperialism negara barat pada era ke-19, dimana hukum internasional masih mencari bentukan yang sesuai dengan kondisi. Setelah munculnya Piagam PBB aksi dan legitimasi tersebut hilang momentumnya, tetapi serangan 11 September memunculkan kembali doktrin yang telah lama hilang tersebut dengan wajah baru yang mengatasnamakan aksi pemberantasan terorisme serta senjata pemusnah massal dan penegakan demokrasi sebagai alasan agresi dengan kekuatan militer. Hal ini merupakan signifikansi penyimpangan pada kaidah hukum internasional. Bahkan bila melihat fakta yang terjadi sebuah negara dapat bertahun-tahun melakukan aksi penjajahan atau intervensi terhadap negara lain tanpa perlu mengakui dan mencari basis legitimasi yang dapat diakui serta didukung masyarakat global. Dilihat dari segi hukum internasional juga kaidah hak asasi manusia, aski AS ini merupakan penyimpangan yang perlu disikapi agar tidak terulang kembali dikemudian hari.

Kritsiotis juga memiliki konklusi yang serupa mengenai aksi Self-Defence dengan aksi retaliatoris yang berlebihan. Berdasarkan studi kasus pada serangan misil AS ke Iraq tahun 1993, administrasi AS dibawah Clinton menggunakan hukum kebiasaan dan treaty law of Self-Defence. Aspek politis sangat mempengaruhi keputusan Self-Defence yang tidak sejalan dengan hukum internasional terutama bila didukung oleh dukungan Internasional terhadap aksi AS tersebut. Aksi Self-Defence AS juga tidak memenuhi tingkat immediacy yang mencukupi, sehingga kecurigaan atas aksi militer banyak tercampur oleh alasan kepentingan unilateral dari AS.

Berbeda dengan perspektif Maogoto, Pham, dan Kritsiotis yang pesimistis akan aksi AS sebagai penyimpangan hukum internasional. Peneliti John W. Lango menelaah lebih jauh mengenai konsep legitimasi preemptive war dari PBB itu sendiri yang secara langsung mempengaruhi keberadaan serangan antisipatoris yang terjadi sebagai justifikasi aksi unilateral AS. Pada awal reportasi dari Sekjen PBB mengenai Prevention of Armed Conflict, Kofi Annan memberikan pernyataan pengubahan orientasi PBB dari kultur reaksi menjadi preventif. Dalam artikel 39 Piagam PBB juga tercantum pada pendelegasian tugas pada Dewan Keamanan PBB untuk mengambil langkah untuk menjaga perdamaian, yang menurut Lango, merupakan pemberian hak istimewa bagi Dewan Keamanan untuk mengambil langkah preventif pada “ancaman” perdamaian. Serta pada Artikel 40 melanjutkan bahwa Dewan Keamanan memberikan resolusi bagi suatu negara yang mengancam perdamaian, dan bila negara tersebut tidak memberikan respon yang kooperatif, maka dapat dilanjutkan dengan agresi yang bersifat militer. Lango memberikan contoh pada ancaman adanya dugaan Weapons of Mass Destruction pada Iraq dalam perang teluk tahun 1991.

Bila dikaitkan dengan aksi unilateral AS dalam melakukan invasi sesuai dengan Piagam PBB, Lango menyebutkan justfikasi tersebut dapat ditemukan dalam pasal 51 yang telah dibahas sebelumnya. Justifikasi aksi unilateral tersebut dapat dinterpretasikan sebagai bentuk pendelegasian wewenang terhadap Dewan Keamanan secara tidak langsung, terutama para anggota tetap. Hal ini yang dimanfaatkan oleh AS dalam melakukan aksi militernya terhadap segala ancaman perdamaian, mulai dari era Reagan hingga Bush junior.

Pada tataran ideal, suatu aksi preemptive harus memenuhi asas proporsionalitas dimana keuntungannya melebihi kerugian yang di ambil. Lango secara eksplisit mendukung aksi AS untuk memimpin pemberantasan keamanan seperti ancaman senjata pemusnah massal, hingga senjata kimia dan biologis, dengan alasan AS sebagai salah satu pembentuk PBB di akhir Perang Dunia kedua. Sesuai dengan acuan keamanan nasional dari pemerintahan AS dibawah Bush, bahwa AS akan melakukan aksi antisipatoris dalam menumpas ancaman (terorisme termasuk) dan tidak akan ragu untuk melakukan secara unilateral “if the cause is Just” .
Analisis

Dari summary artikel diatas, penulis dapat melihat dua buah pilar pendapat yang mengikuti justifikasi Amerika Serikat. Pihak penentang menyatakan justifikasi aksi pre-emptive atas dasar self-defence yang dilancarkan Amerika Serikat telah muncul dibawah interpretasi hukum yang salah serta terlalu bergantung pada interpretasi hukum kebiasaan (customary law), seperti konsep Just War. Pasal 51 Piagam PBB secara longgar diinterpretasikan sebagai dasar karena kurangnya penjelasan mengenai bentuk penyerangan yang benar terjadi yang memaksa suatu negara melancarkan aksi self-defence. AS memanfaatkan interpretasi atas dasar moralitas dan kemanusiaan dimana aksi pre-emptive dibutuhkan sebelum bentuk ancaman berubah menjadi sebuah ancaman serius. Secara moralitas praktik tersebut dapat diakui, tetapi kenyataan yang terjadi pada invasi AS terhadap Irak atas tuduhan senjata pemusnah massal tidaklah terbukti sehingga merusak esensi inisiasi serangan preemptive.

Kofi Annan selaku dewan PBB memang mendukung bentukan aksi aktif AS ketika Presiden Bush junior meyakinkan dunia bahwa aksi pembentukan pasukan interasional yang dipimpin AS merupakan hal yang tepat untuk melawan teroris serta ancaman senjata pemusnah massal. Tetapi AS melakukan hal yang diluar ekspektasi ketika aksi preemptive tersebut justru memperburuk situasi Irak, terutama dengan banyaknya korban dari warga sipil, serta aksi yang justru memicu banyak konflik susulan. Kecaman dunia mulai muncul sehingga membentuk opini pesimistik terhadap segala bentuk preemptive AS yang digunakan sebagai jargon self-defence. Masyarakat internasional kian sadar akan legitimasi untuk ambisi AS semata. Bahkan lebih jauh seperti apa yang Pham utarakan bahwa bentuk penjajahan dan intervensi di Abad 21 dapat tidak diakui oleh sebuah negara, sehingga AS dapat terlindung dari kenyataan bahwa aksi invasi tersebut memiliki kesamaan dengan justifikasi kolonialisme di abad 19 untuk melancarkan aksi militer terhadap less-civilized society.

Selain itu Lango memberikan pendekatan berbeda bahwa aksi AS secara jelas terlegitimasi mengingat posisinya sebagai DK PBB yang mengharuskan dilakukannya pengambilan usaha pemeliharaan keamanan sesuai dengan artikel 39 Piagam PBB. Karakter AS ini menunjukan hegemoni AS sebagai polisi dunia yang telah terbentuk semenjak pemerintahan Reagan hingga Bush Junior. Walau konsensus di DK PBB tidak dicapai, AS menilai bila ancaman telah dinilai cukup membahayakan, AS dapat melakukan intervensi secara langsung.

Penulis berkesimpulan bahwa kasus preemptive ini merupakan titik kelemahan hukum internasional dalam bentukan penjaga keamanan internasional. Kekuatan politik serta pengaruh yang kuat dapat melunakkan interpretasi hukum itu sendiri sehingga aksi yang tidak diinginkan dapat dilancarkan oleh negara yang memiliki pengaruh serta kekuatan militer terkuat. Kemunculan doktrin-doktrin justifikasi menjadi acuan dan diakui dunia internasional karena kekuatan lobbying power yang dimiliki AS sehingga banyak merangkul negara lain untuk menyetejui aksi AS, meskipun tidak ada konsensu bulat di Majelis Umum PBB serta DK PBB. Kasus invasi Ira oleh pemerintahan Bush merangkul lebih dari 20 negara untuk memberikan pasukan “perdamaian” untuk operasi “Iraqi Freedom”, terutama Inggris yang pro AS.

Jadi hukum yang tertera di Piagam PBB bersifat universal dan interpretasi yang dilakukan terhadap hukum tersebut dapat bermacam-macam. Kekuatan politik sangat berpengaruh untuk pembentukan interpretasi dan opini publik Internasional. Ditengah urgensi ketakutan terhadap terorisme, AS dapat menggiring publik dunia serta meyakinkan dunia internasional bahwa aksi preemptive yang dilakukan adalah untuk tujuan self-defence, tidak hanya untuk AS, tapi untuk seluruh masyarakat dunia. Lalu ketika hasilnya diluar ekspektasi, kekecewaan bermunculan, pemerintah AS sendiri yang harus menanggung merosotnya pamor pemerintahannya. Krisis financial AS penulis berpendapat kurang klebih dipengaruhi oleh pengeluaran biaya militer yang berlebihan.

Jadi pengawasan terhadap interpretasi yang bersifat politis terhadap hukum internasional harus dikritisi dan diawasi lebih seksama demi tujuan membentuk masyarakat internasional yang damai dan taat kaidah hukum.