White House State Dinners, the Grand Tradition

Introduction: Obama Hosts South Korea (Roger L. Wollenberg-Pool/Getty Images) White House state dinners, Washington's quintessential social events, represent classy diplomacy. They are a way to honor a good relationship, attempt to patch over a bad one, or push a specific foreign policy. Here are some state dinners and notable White House guests since World War II. President: Barack Obama Date: Oct. 13, 2011 Guest of Honor: Korean President Lee Myung-bak and his wife Kim Yoon-ok On the eve of the state dinner with Lee, the U.S. Congress passed a free-trade agreement between the United States and Korea, along with agreements with Panama and Colombia. The three agreements had been languishing in Congress for nearly four years—they were introduced during the Bush administration, in 2007. Source : Copyright © 2011 U.S.News & World Report LP All rights reserved. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Political Science

Filed under Political Science | Last modified September 25, 2011 at 19:32 Politics is the struggle over the allocation of benefits and privileges. Government is the institution responsible for resolving conflicts over the allocation of benefits and privileges. According to Hobbes, life in a state of nature (what world would look like without government) is nasty, brutish and short. Hobbes’ perception is built on the assumption that men are selfish and predatory. Government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This provides order in society and lends stability and predictability to interactions. Order is achieved by limiting freedom of choice. Individuals voluntarily surrender freedom for order. Individuals voluntary surrender freedom for order, thus escaping state of nature. How much order should a government provide? How much freedom should individuals relinquish? Freedoms lost must be outweighed by freedoms gained. Also, governments provide public goods as a means of ensuring order. Order is the solution to societal chaos. For example, infrastructure such as sanitation and transportation maintains stability. Lastly, governments promote equality to ensure order — for example, bridging the gap between rich and poor by various means. The social contract is the voluntary sacrifice of freedom in exchange for order. Participation in the democratic process constitutes a renewal of the social contract. Under non-democratic regimes, citizens are unable to renew the social contract and the government loses legitimacy. Another factor is authority, which is the power of the government to enforce its decisions and compel obedience. 1. Totalitarianism: Government controls all aspects of life. For example, Nazi Germany. Authority: Yes. Legitimacy: No. 2. Democracy: Government controlled by the governed. For example, US, Britain and France. Authority: Yes. Legitimacy: Yes. There are three types of government or political systems: 1. Totalitarian governments have unlimited power and determine who winners and losers are. An example is Nazi Germany. 2. Authoritarian governments strongly influence who winners and losers are. Although dominant in their own sphere, other power bases exist in society. An example is Poland before the collapse of Soviet Union. 3. Democratic governments influence who the winners and losers are. Individuals possess rights that the government cannot take away. There are three types of economic systems, organized by who owns the means of production: 1. Capitalism places ownership in private individuals. 2. Socialism places ownership in the government. 3. Communism places ownership in the workers. There are three principles of a democratic government: 1. Popular sovereignty. The right of all citizens to vote (universal suffrage — exceptions include felons in some states). Government leaders are elected. Elections are free, fair and frequent. People participate in the political process. High-quality information is available. The majority rules. 2. Political equality. One person, one vote. Equal before the law. 3. Political liberty. Freedom to participate in processes that converts popular will into public policy. Popular opinion is the distribution of benefits and privileges preferred by the citizenry. Popular will is the distribution of benefits and privileges preferred by the citizenry when two conditions are met: high-quality information and opportunity to deliberate. Popular will is then converted into public policy via: elections; citizens receiving information about government activity; expressing preferences individually, beyond voting; joining associations to articulate preferences. Two issues frequently arise regarding political liberty: privately funded lobbyists and transparency. Some people have proposed public funding of lobbyists, while others have suggested the government maintain a maximum of transparency. There are three kinds of Democracy: 1. Majoritarian democracies where policy decisions reflect the preference of the majority of individuals. 2. Elitist democracies where policy decisions reflect the preferences of a select few. 3. Pluralist democracies where policy decisions reflect compromises among various competing factions. Source : studentreader.com

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/

New Pollster, Same Result: Public Faith in SBY Falling Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s public approval rating is declining, while those of rival political parties are gaining against his Democratic Party, according to a new survey that adds to the growing of evidence of waning support for the president. Released on Sunday, the survey by new pollster Jaringan Suara Indonesia (Indonesian Voice Network) indicated the president’s approval rating was at 53 percent. The figure, the pollster said, represented a steep decline from a survey conducted by a separate pollster, Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI), which put the number at 70 percent in January 2010 and 62 percent in October 2010. “We used the LSI result as a comparison because our survey is the first conducted [by us] at the national level,” Jaringan executive director Widdi Aswindi said on Sunday. The JSI survey was conducted from Oct. 10-15 and involved 1,200 respondents across the country. The results mirrored the trend monitored by a third pollster, the Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI), which put the president’s approval rating at 57 percent in January, 47 percent in June and 38 percent in October. Widdi said 62 percent of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with how Yudhoyono handled corruption cases, particularly the Bank Century bailout scandal and the major graft case surrounding an athletes village for next month’s Southeast Asian Games. Respondents also highlighted Yudhoyono’s failure in delivering promises he made when starting his second term in office in October 2009, Widdi said. “There are at least eight promises that have not been delivered, like reduction of unemployment and poverty, people’s welfare improvement, bureaucratic reform, corruption eradication, the fight against cronyism and nepotism, the construction of apartments for the poor, the equality of regional development and self sufficiency in food,” he said. Saan Mustofa, a senior member of the Democratic Party, said the latest survey result would be used by the party to evaluate and improve the government’s performance. “The dissatisfaction is reasonable because the public had very high hopes for the government at the start of the current term,” Saan said. But Saan denied claims the government lacked commitment to tackling graft. “The government has entrusted the [Century] case to KPK [Corruption Eradication Commission], the police and the prosecutors,” he said. The survey by JSI also found support for retired Army general Prabowo Subianto to stand for president in 2014. The founder of the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra) was rated more popular than other potential candidates, including Golkar Party chairman Aburizal Bakrie, National Mandate Party (PAN) chairman Hatta Radjasa and media mogul Surya Paloh. Only former President Megawati Sukarnoputri, from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), could beat Prabowo’s popularity. Copyright ©2011 Jakarta Globe, All Rights Reserved About Us | Privacy Policy | Comment Policy | Sitemap | RSS Feed Visit Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter Berita Satu Media Holdings Citra Graha Building 11th Floor, Suite 1102 | Jl. Jend. Gatot Subroto Kav. 35-36 | Jakarta 12650 | Indonesia Phone: +62 21 29957500 | Fax: +62 21 5200072 | Berita Satu Media Holding

http://www.idea.int

Democracy in Indonesia Posted: 2005-09-21 Is democracy in Indonesia on track? Is democracy in Indonesia on track, one year after the presidential elections, asked a seminar, on “Indonesian Politics: 60 Years’ Journey towards Independence, Democracy, National Development, and Regional Autonomy” organised jointly by IDEA and the Embassy of Indonesia in Sweden. The seminar took place on 20 September, in IDEA headquarters in Stockholm and sought to increase the knowledge and interest in Sweden, in the Indonesian democratisation process. The seminar was intended for those who are interested in the development of Indonesian democracy, in particular in the nexus political/economic perspectives. Marie Sjölander, Head of the South-East Asia and Pacific division of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs made the keynote remark. Tanri Abeng, former Minister for State Owned Enterprises in Indonesia made a presentation on “Business Environment under the New Leadership in Indonesia”, Professor Iwan Jaya Aziz from Cornell University on “Institutional Constraints in Development and Decentralization Process: The Case of Indonesia”, and Andrew Ellis, Head of Electoral Processes, on “One Year After the Elections – is Democracy in Indonesia on Course?”. Over 50 participants from the Indonesian community in Stockholm, the Swedish government, and civil society organizations (CSOs) based in Stockholm attended the event. As part of its work on the democratisation in Indonesia, IDEA is running a project in Jakarta to support the establishment and development of the new Regional Representative Council (DPD). International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) Strömsborg, SE-103 34 Stockholm, Sweden | Tel: +46 8 698 37 00 | Fax: +46 8 20 24 22 NOTE: Temporary visiting address: Wallingatan 2, SE-111 60, Stockholm E-mail: info@idea.int | Website: www.idea.int | © 2010, International IDEA. All rights reserved.

http://www.oup.com

The Globalization of World Politics The new edition of The Globalization of World Politics published in December 2010 so any unclaimed activation codes have now expired. However the 5th edition student resources are open-access and can be found here: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/baylis5e/. (Lecturers please note that if you have adopted this textbook on your course, you should follow the registration steps described under "Lecturer resources" below, and this will automatically give you access to any student resources as well.) Already registered your activation code? Click on any student resource below to log in. * Case studies Four case studies applying international relations theories to real life situations * Flashcard glossary A series of interactive flashcards containing key terms and concepts to test your understanding of terminology * Links to OUP journal articles Access the text of a selection of OUP journal articles to further your knowledge of key topics * Multiple choice questions Reinforce your understanding of themes with these self-marking questions and receive immediate feedback * Oxford NewsNow News feeds providing you with access to relevant articles from different news sites * Video podcasts from the contributors Learn more about the current issues surrounding the different chapter topics by downloading these podcasts * Revision guide A checklist of the key points from each chapter * Web links Direct links to useful sites for further information and research Lecturer resources The following resources are password-protected and for adopting lecturers' use only. Not yet registered for a password? Please complete the two steps below: 1. Inform your local sales representative that your are adopting this textbook. You may wish to do this via the Find your sales representative page. 2. Complete the registration form. Please note your registration can only be processed if your sales representative is aware of your adoption. Already registered for a password? Click on any resource below to log in. * Figures and tables from the textbook All the figures and tables from the textbook available to download electronically to assist in lecture preparation * PowerPoint slides A suite of customizable slides for use in lectures and as class handouts * Question bank A bank of short answer and essay questions for testing your students * Test bank Over 450 multiple choice and true/false questions with which to test your students * VLE content Import all the material available on this Online Resource Centre into your VLE View print version Text size: A A A Bookmark and Share Book Image View larger About Image About the book Find out more, buy the book directly from the website, or order a free inspection copy if you are a lecturer, all from the OUP catalogue Sample Content Sample Content Chapter 12: The changing character of war Michael Sheehan (size: 389kB) Get Adobe PDF reader [ UK | US ] Mail Image Keep me updated about this site Our email service will alert you when new material is added to this online resource centre. Simply send the email, leaving the subject line Baylis, Smith and Owens: keep me updated! as it appears. Copyright © Oxford University Press, 2011. Privacy Policy and Legal Notice | Terms and conditions of use

http://en.wikipedia.org

International relations From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia International relations (IR) (occasionally referred to as international studies (IS)) is the study of relationships between countries, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular states. It is often considered a branch of political science (especially after 1988 UNESCO nomenclature), but an important sector of academia prefer to treat it as an interdisciplinary field of study. Aspects of international relations have been studied for thousands of years, since the time of Thucydides, but IR became a separate and definable discipline in the early 20th century.[1] Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, international law, philosophy, geography, social work, sociology, anthropology, psychology, women's studies/gender studies, and cultural studies / culturology. It involves a diverse range of issues including but not limited to: globalization, state sovereignty, international security, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, global finance, terrorism, organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism and human rights. History The history of international relations can be traced thousands of years ago; Barry Buzan and Richard Little, for example, consider the interaction of ancient Sumerian city-states, starting in 3,500 BC, as the first fully-fledged international system.[2] The history of international relations based on nation-states is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, where the modern state system was developed. Prior to this, the European medieval organization of political authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order. Westphalia instituted the legal concept of sovereignty, that didn't exist in classical and medieval times, which essentially meant that rulers, or the legitimate sovereigns, had no internal equals within a defined territory and no external superiors as the ultimate authority within the territory's sovereign borders. A simple way to view this is that sovereignty says, "I'm not allowed to tell you what to do and you are not allowed to tell me what to do." Westphalia encouraged the rise of the independent nation-state, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. This particular European system was exported to the Americas, Africa, and Asia via colonialism and the "standards of civilization". The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during the Cold War. However, this is somewhat over-simplified. While the nation-state system is considered "modern", many states have not incorporated the system and are termed "pre-modern". Further, a handful of states have moved beyond the nation-state system and can be considered "post-modern". The ability of contemporary IR discourse to explain the relations of these different types of states is disputed. "Levels of analysis" is a way of looking at the international system, which includes the individual level, the domestic nation-state as a unit, the international level of transnational and intergovernmental affairs, and the global level. What is explicitly recognized as International Relations theory was not developed until after World War I, and is dealt with in more detail below. IR theory, however, has a long tradition of drawing on the work of other social sciences. The use of capitalizations of the "I" and "R" in International Relations aims to distinguish the academic discipline of International Relations from the phenomena of international relations. Many cite Sun Tzu's The Art of War (6th century BC), Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (5th century BC), Chanakya's Arthashastra (4th century BC), as the inspiration for realist theory, with Hobbes' Leviathan and Machiavelli's The Prince providing further elaboration. Similarly, liberalism draws upon the work of Kant and Rousseau, with the work of the former often being cited as the first elaboration of democratic peace theory. Though contemporary human rights is considerably different than the type of rights envisioned under natural law, Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius and John Locke offered the first accounts of universal entitlement to certain rights on the basis of common humanity. In the twentieth century, in addition to contemporary theories of liberal internationalism, Marxism has been a foundation of international relations. [edit] Study of IR Flags of the member states of the United Nations Initially, international relations as a distinct field of study was almost entirely British-centered. IR only emerged as a formal academic ‘discipline’ in 1918 with the founding of the first ‘chair’ (professorship) in IR - the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth, University of Wales (now Aberystwyth University[3]), from an endowment given by David Davies, became the first academic position dedicated to IR. This was rapidly followed by establishment of IR at US universities and Geneva, Switzerland. In the early 1920s, the London School of Economics' department of International Relations was founded at the behest of Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker. The first university entirely dedicated to the study of IR was the Graduate Institute of International Studies (now the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies), which was founded in 1927 to form diplomats associated to the League of Nations, established in Geneva some years before. The Graduate Institute of International Studies offered one of the first Ph.D. degrees in international relations. Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service is the oldest international relations faculty in the United States, founded in 1919. The Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago was the first to offer a graduate degree, in 1928. [edit] Theory Main article: International relations theory [edit] Epistemology and IR theory International relations theory • Idealism Liberalism Neoliberalism Liberal Peace Theory Sociological liberalism Interdependence liberalism Institutional liberalism Republican liberalism • Realism Classical realism Neorealism (structural realism) Offensive realism Defensive realism Neoclassical realism Liberal realism ('English School') • Marxism Neo-Gramscianism • Dependency theory • Functionalism Neofunctionalism • Critical theories Constructivism Feminism World-systems theory • Other approaches International Ethics Postcolonialism Post-modernism Historical sociology Regime theory State cartel theory • Classifications Rationalism Politics portal v · d · e IR theories can be roughly divided into one of two epistemological camps: "positivist" and "post-positivist". Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces. They typically focus on features of international relations such as state interactions, size of military forces, balance of powers etc. Post-positivist epistemology rejects the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free way. It rejects the central ideas of neo-realism/liberalism, such as rational choice theory, on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be applied to the social world and that a 'science' of IR is impossible. A key difference between the two positions is that while positivist theories, such as neo-realism, offer causal explanations (such as why and how power is exercised), post-positivist theories focus instead on constitutive questions, for instance what is meant by 'power'; what makes it up, how it is experienced and how it is reproduced. Often, post-positivist theories explicitly promote a normative approach to IR, by considering ethics. This is something which has often been ignored under 'traditional' IR as positivist theories make a distinction between 'facts' and normative judgments, or 'values'. During the late 1980s/1990 debate between positivists and post-positivists became the dominant debate and has been described as constituting the Third "Great Debate" (Lapid 1989). [edit] Positivist Theories [edit] Realism Realism focuses on state security and power above all else. Early realists such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival. Cooperation between states is a way to maximize each individual state's security (as opposed to more idealistic reasons). Similarly, any act of war must be based on self-interest, rather than on idealism. Many realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory. It should be noted that classical writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Theodore Roosevelt, are often cited as "founding fathers" of realism by contemporary self-described realists.[citation needed] However, while their work may support realist doctrine, it is not likely that they would have classified themselves as realists (in this sense of the term). Realists are often split up into two groups: Classical or Human Nature Realists (as described here) and Structural or Neorealists (below). Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. To improve society, it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion-between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking. The placement of Realism under positivism is far from unproblematic however. E.H. Carr's 'What is History' was a deliberate critique of positivism, and Hans Morgenthau's aim in 'Scientific Man vs Power Politics' - as the title implies - was to demolish any conception that international politics/power politics can be studied scientifically. [edit] Liberalism/idealism/Liberal Internationalism Liberal international relations theory arose after World War I in response to the inability of states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell, who argued vigorously that states mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive to be essentially futile. Liberalism was not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was collectively and derisively termed idealism by E. H. Carr. A new version of "idealism" that focused on human rights as the basis of the legitimacy of international law was advanced by Hans Köchler. Further information: liberal internationalism [edit] Neoliberalism Neoliberalism seeks to update liberalism by accepting the neorealist presumption that states are the key actors in international relations, but still maintains that non-state actors (NSAs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) matter. Proponents such as Maria Chattha argue that states will cooperate irrespective of relative gains, and are thus concerned with absolute gains. This also means that nations are, in essence, free to make their own choices as to how they will go about conducting policy without any international organizations blocking a nation's right to sovereignty. Neoliberalism also contains an economic theory that is based on the use of open and free markets with little, if any, government intervention to prevent monopolies and other conglomerates from forming. The growing interdependence throughout and after the Cold War through international institutions led to neo-liberalism being defined as institutionalism, this new part of the theory being fronted by Robert Keohane and also Joseph Nye. Further information: complex interdependence [edit] Regime Theory Regime theory is derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states (or other international actors). It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, indeed, regimes are by definition, instances of international cooperation. While realism predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy. Often they cite cooperation in trade, human rights and collective security among other issues. These instances of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definition of regimes comes from Stephen Krasner. Krasner defines regimes as "institutions possessing norms, decision rules, and procedures which facilitate a convergence of expectations." Not all approaches to regime theory, however are liberal or neoliberal; some realist scholars like Joseph Greico have developed hybrid theories which take a realist based approach to this fundamentally liberal theory. (Realists do not say cooperation never happens, just that it is not the norm; it is a difference of degree). [edit] Post-positivist/reflectivist theories [edit] International society theory (the English school) International society theory, also called the English School, focuses on the shared norms and values of states and how they regulate international relations. Examples of such norms include diplomacy, order, and international law. Unlike neo-realism, it is not necessarily positivist. Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian intervention, and are subdivided between solidarists, who tend to advocate it more, and pluralists, who place greater value in order and sovereignty. Nicholas Wheeler is a prominent solidarist, while Hedley Bull and Robert H. Jackson are perhaps the best known pluralists. [edit] Social Constructivism Social Constructivism encompasses a broad range of theories that aim to address questions of ontology, such as the Structure and agency debate, as well as questions of epistemology, such as the "material/ideational" debate that concerns the relative role of material forces versus ideas. Constructivism is not a theory of IR in the manner of neo-realism, but is instead a social theory which is used to better explain the actions taken by states and other major actors as well as the identities that guide these states and actors. Constructivism in IR can be divided into what Hopf (1998) calls 'conventional' and 'critical' constructivism. Common to all varieties of constructivism is an interest in the role that ideational forces play. The most famous constructivist scholar, Alexander Wendt noted in a 1992 article in International Organization (later followed up by a book, Social Theory of International Politics (1999)), that "anarchy is what states make of it". By this he means that the anarchical structure that neo-realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced by states. For example, if the system is dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or death situation (what Wendt terms a "Hobbesian" anarchy) then the system will be characterised by warfare. If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted (a "Lockean" anarchy) then a more peaceful system will exist. Anarchy in this view is constituted by state interaction, rather than accepted as a natural and immutable feature of international life as viewed by neo-realist IR scholars. [edit] Critical Theory Main article: Critical international relations theory Critical international relations theory is the application of 'critical theory' to international relations. Proponents such as Andrew Linklater, Robert W. Cox and Ken Booth focus on the need for human emancipation from States. Hence, it is "critical" of mainstream IR theories that tend to be state-centric. [edit] Marxism Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories of IR reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the assumption that the economy trumps other concerns; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, the period of colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence. Linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory which argues that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, penetrate developing states through political advisors, missionaries, experts, and MNCs to integrate them into the capitalist system in order to appropriate natural resources and foster dependence. Marxist theories receive scant attention in the United States where no significant socialist party ever existed. It is more common in parts of Europe and is one of the most important theoretic contributions of Latin American academia, for example through Liberation theology. [edit] Leadership Theories [edit] Interest Group perspective Interest Group theory posits that the driving force behind state behavior is sub-state interest groups. Examples of interest groups include political lobbyists, the military, and the corporate sector. Group theory argues that although these interest groups are constitutive of the state, they are also causal forces in the exercise of state power. [edit] Strategic Perspective Strategic Perspective is a theoretical approach that views individuals as choosing their actions by taking into account the anticipated actions and responses of others with the intention of maximizing their own welfare. [edit] Inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psychology Further information: Bad faith and inherent bad faith model The "inherent bad faith model" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles’ beliefs and his model of information processing.[4] It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent.[5] A state is presumed to be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are John Foster Dulles’ position regarding the Soviet Union, or Israel’s initial position on the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[6] [edit] Poststructuralist theories Poststructuralist theories of IR developed in the 1980s from postmodernist studies in political science. Post-structuralism explores the deconstruction of concepts traditionally not problematic in IR, such as 'power' and 'agency' and examines how the construction of these concepts shapes international relations. The examination of 'narratives' plays an important part in poststructuralist analysis, for example feminist poststructuralist work has examined the role that 'women' play in global society and how they are constructed in war as 'innocent' and 'civilians'. Examples of post-positivist research include: * Feminisms ("gendering" war) * Postcolonialism (challenges the euro-centrism of IR) * Post-realism (focuses on IR theory as scientific and political rhetoric) [edit] Concepts in international relations [edit] Conjuncture In decision making in international relations, the concept of Conjuncture (international relations), together with freedom of action and equality are important elements. Decision makers must take into account the set of international conditions in taking initiatives that would create different types of responses. [edit] Systemic level concepts International relations is often viewed in terms of levels of analysis. The systemic level concepts are those broad concepts that define and shape an international milieu, characterised by Anarchy. [edit] Power Darkest blue countries most often considered to be superpowers, dark blue countries most often considered to be great powers, pale blue countries most often considered to be middle powers, and palest blue countries also sometimes considered to be middle powers.[7] The concept of power in international relations can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in international affairs. It is often divided up into the concepts of hard power and soft power, hard power relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force, and soft power commonly covering economics, diplomacy and cultural influence. However, there is no clear dividing line between the two forms of power. [edit] Polarity Polarity in International Relations refers to the arrangement of power within the international system. The concept arose from bipolarity during the Cold War, with the international system dominated by the conflict between two superpowers, and has been applied retrospectively by theorists. However, the term bipolar was notably used by Stalin who said he saw the international system as a bipolar one with two opposing powerbases and ideologies. Consequently, the international system prior to 1945 can be described as multi-polar, with power being shared among Great powers. Empires of the world in 1910. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had led to what some would call unipolarity, with the United States as a sole superpower. However, due to China's continued rapid economic growth (in 2010 it became the world's second largest economy), combined with the respectable international position they hold within political spheres and the power that the Chinese Government exerts over their people (consisting of the largest population in the world), there is debate over whether China is now a superpower or a possible candidate in the future. Several theories of international relations draw upon the idea of polarity. The balance of power was a concept prevalent in Europe prior to the First World War, the thought being that by balancing power blocs it would create stability and prevent war. Theories of the balance of power gained prominence again during the Cold War, being a central mechanism of Kenneth Waltz's Neorealism. Here, the concepts of balancing (rising in power to counter another) and bandwagonning (siding with another) are developed. Hegemonic stability theory (developed by Robert Gilpin) also draws upon the idea of Polarity, specifically the state of unipolarity. Hegemony is the preponderance of power at one pole in the international system, and the theory argues this is a stable configuration because of mutual gains by both the dominant power and others in the international system. This is contrary to many Neorealist arguments, particularly made by Kenneth Waltz, stating that the end of the Cold War and the state of unipolarity is an unstable configuration that will inevitably change. This can be expressed in Power transition theory, which states that it is likely that a great power would challenge a hegemon after a certain period, resulting in a major war. It suggests that while hegemony can control the occurrence of wars, it also results in the creation of one. Its main proponent, A.F.K. Organski, argued this based on the occurrence of previous wars during British, Portuguese and Dutch hegemony. [edit] Interdependence Many advocate that the current international system is characterized by growing interdependence; the mutual responsibility and dependency on others. Advocates of this point to growing globalization, particularly with international economic interaction. The role of international institutions, and widespread acceptance of a number of operating principles in the international system, reinforces ideas that relations are characterized by interdependence. [edit] Dependency NATO International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Dependency theory is a theory most commonly associated with Marxism, stating that a set of Core states exploit a set of weaker Periphery states for their prosperity. Various versions of the theory suggest that this is either an inevitability (standard dependency theory), or use the theory to highlight the necessity for change (Neo-Marxist). [edit] Systemic tools of international relations * Diplomacy is the practice of communication and negotiation between representatives of states. To some extent, all other tools of international relations can be considered the failure of diplomacy. Keeping in mind, the use of other tools are part of the communication and negotiation inherent within diplomacy. Sanctions, force, and adjusting trade regulations, while not typically considered part of diplomacy, are actually valuable tools in the interest of leverage and placement in negotiations. * Sanctions are usually a first resort after the failure of diplomacy, and are one of the main tools used to enforce treaties. They can take the form of diplomatic or economic sanctions and involve the cutting of ties and imposition of barriers to communication or trade. * War, the use of force, is often thought of as the ultimate tool of international relations. A widely accepted definition is that given by Clausewitz, with war being "the continuation of politics by other means". There is a growing study into 'new wars' involving actors other than states. The study of war in International Relations is covered by the disciplines of 'War Studies' and 'Strategic studies'. * The mobilization of international shame can also be thought of as a tool of International Relations. This is attempting to alter states' actions through 'naming and shaming' at the international level. This is mostly done by the large human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International (for instance when it called Guantanamo Bay a "Gulag"),[8] or Human Rights Watch. A prominent use of was the UN Commission on Human Rights 1235 procedure, which publicly exposes state's human rights violations. The current Human Rights Council has yet to use this Mechanism * The allotment of economic and/or diplomatic benefits. An example of this is the European Union's enlargement policy. Candidate countries are allowed entry into the EU only after the fulfillment of the Copenhagen criteria. [edit] Unit-level concepts in international relations As a level of analysis the unit level is often referred to as the state level, as it locates its explanation at the level of the state, rather than the international system. [edit] Regime type It is often considered that a state's form of government can dictate the way that a state interacts with others in the international system. Democratic Peace Theory is a theory that suggests that the nature of democracy means that democratic countries will not go to war with each other. The justifications for this are that democracies externalise their norms and only go to war for just causes, and that democracy encourages mutual trust and respect. Communism justifies a world revolution, which similarly would lead to peaceful coexistence, based on a proletarian global society. [edit] Revisionism/Status quo States can be classified by whether they accept the international status quo, or are revisionist, i.e. want change. Revisionist states seek to fundamentally change the rules and practices of international relations, feeling disadvantaged by the status quo. They see the international system as a largely western creation which serves to reinforce current realities. Japan is an example of a state that has gone from being a revisionist state to one that is satisfied with the status quo, because the status quo is now beneficial to it. [edit] Religion It is often considered that religion can have an effect on the way a state acts within the international system. Religion is visible as an organising principle particularly for Islamic states, whereas secularism sits at the other end of the spectrum, with the separation of state and religion being responsible for the Liberal international relations theory. [edit] Individual or sub-unit level concepts The level beneath the unit (state) level can be useful both for explaining factors in International Relations that other theories fail to explain, and for moving away from a state-centric view of international relations. * Psychological factors in International Relations - Evaluating psychological factors in international relations comes from the understanding that a state is not a 'black box' as proposed by Realism, and that there may be other influences on foreign policy decisions. Examining the role of personalities in the decision making process can have some explanatory power, as can the role of misperception between various actors. A prominent application of sub-unit level psychological factors in international relations is the concept of Groupthink, another is the propensity of policymakers to think in terms of analogies. * Bureaucratic politics - Looks at the role of the bureaucracy in decision making, and sees decisions as a result of bureaucratic in-fighting, and as having been shaped by various constraints. * Religious, Ethnic, and secessionist groups - Viewing these aspects of the sub-unit level has explanatory power with regards to ethnic conflicts, religious wars, transnational diaspora (diaspora politics) and other actors which do not consider themselves to fit with the defined state boundaries. This is particularly useful in the context of the pre-modern world of weak states. * Science, Technology and International Relations- How science and technology impact the global health, business, environment, technology, and development. * International political economy, and economic factors in international relations.[9] * International political culturology – Looks at how culture and cultural variables impact in international relations[10] · [11] · .[12] [edit] Institutions in international relations The United Nations Secretariat Building at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. International institutions form a vital part of contemporary International Relations. Much interaction at the system level is governed by them, and they outlaw some traditional institutions and practices of International Relations, such as the use of war (except in self-defence). As humanity enters the Planetary phase of civilization, some scientists and political theorists[who?] see a global hierarchy of institutions replacing the existing system of sovereign nation-states as the primary political community. They argue that nations are an imagined community that cannot resolve such modern challenges as the “Dogville” effect (strangers in a homogeneous community), the legal and political status of stateless people and refugees, and the need to address worldwide concerns like climate change and pandemics. Futurist Paul Raskin has hypothesized that a new, more legitimate form of global politics could be based on “constrained pluralism.” This principle guides the formation of institutions based on three characteristics: irreducibility, where some issues must be adjudicated at the global level; subsidiarity, which limits the scope of global authority to truly global issues while smaller-scope issues are regulated at lower levels; and heterogeneity, which allows for diverse forms of local and regional institutions as long as they meet global obligations. See also: International organization [edit] Generalist Inter-State Organizations * United Nations Main article: United Nations The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a "global association of governments facilitating co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity"; It is the most prominent international institution. Many of the legal institutions follow the same organizational structure as the UN. * African Union * ASEAN * Arab League * CIS * European Union * G8 * G20 * League of Nations * Organization of American States [edit] Economic institutions The World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C. * Asian Development Bank * African Development Bank * Inter-American Development Bank * International Monetary Fund * World Bank * World Trade Organization [edit] International legal bodies [edit] Human rights * European Court of Human Rights * Human Rights Committee * Inter-American Court of Human Rights * International Criminal Court * International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda * International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia * United Nations Human Rights Council [edit] Legal * African Court of Justice * European Court of Justice * International Court of Justice * International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea [edit] Regional security arrangements Main article: Collective Security NATO E-3A flying with USAF F-16s in a NATO exercise. * CSCAP * GUAM * Maritime security regime * NATO * SCO * SAARC * UNASUR [edit] See also Wikimedia Commons has media related to: International relations * Ahidnâme * Branding National Myths and Symbols * Capitulation (treaty) * Center for Global Public Relations (in North Carolina in the US) * Democracy promotion * Development criticism * Diplomacy Monitor, a tool for tracking Internet-based public diplomacy * Diplomatic history * e-International Relations, leading student-run website on global governance, International Relations and diplomacy * Geneva School of Diplomacy & International Relations * Global Relations Forum * Global Studies * Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, MA and PhD programmes in International Relations * History of ideas * Human condition * Human history * Human nature * Human security * Intercultural competence * List of IR institutes and organisations * List of IR schools * List of scholarly journals in international relations * Moral syncretism * Phronetic social science * Political Realism * Confidence-building measures * Confidence-building measures in South America * Continental union [edit] References Notes 1. ^ Columbia Encyclopedia: international relations 2. ^ Barry Buzan, Richard Little. International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. published 2000 3. ^ http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/interpol/ Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University 4. ^ The “Inherent Bad Fatih Model” Reconsidered: Dulles, Kennedy, and Kissinger, Douglas Stuart and Harvey Starr, Political Psychology, [1] 5. ^ “…the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one’s opponent...", The handbook of social psychology, Volumes 1-2, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey 6. ^ “…the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one’s opponent”, The handbook of social psychology, Volumes 1-2, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey 7. ^ Adam Chapnick, The Middle Power. 8. ^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL10/014/2005/en> 9. ^ Eg, Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace, Oxford University Press, 2006. Donald Markwell, Keynes and International Economic and Political Relations, Trinity Paper 33, Trinity College, University of Melbourne. [2] 10. ^ Fabrice Rivault, (1999) Culturologie Politique Internationale : Une approche systémique et matérialiste de la culture et du système social global, McGill Dissertation, Montréal, publiée par Culturology Press 11. ^ Xintian, Yu (2005) “Cultural Factors In International Relations”, Chinese Philosophical Studies. 12. ^ Xintian, Yu (2009),"Combining Research on Cultural Theory and International Relations" [edit] Further reading [edit] Theory * Norman Angell The Great Illusion (London: Heinemann, 1910) * Hedley Bull Anarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977) * Robert Cooper The Post-Modern State * Goodin, Robert E., and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, eds. A New Handbook of Political Science (1998) ch 16-19 pp 401–78 excerpt and text search * Robert Keohane After Hegemony * Hans Köchler, Democracy and the International Rule of Law. Vienna/New York: Springer, 1995 * Andrew Linklater Men and citizens in the theory of international relations * Reinhold Niebuhr Moral Man and Immoral Society 1932 * Joseph Nye Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs Ltd 2004 * Paul Raskin The Great Transition Today: A Report from the Future * J. Ann Tickner Gender in International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992) * Kenneth Waltz Man, the State, and War * Kenneth Waltz Theory of International Politics (1979), examines the foundation of By Bar * Michael Walzer Just and Unjust Wars 1977 * Alexander Wendt Social Theory of International Politics 1999 * J. Martin Rochester Fundamental Principles of International Relations (Westview Press, 2010) [edit] Textbooks * Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (2011) * Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations (5tyh ed. 2010) * Nau, Henry R. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, Ideas (2008) * Roskin, Michael G., and Nicholas O. Berry. IR: The New World of International Relations (8th ed. 2009) [edit] History of international relations * New Cambridge Modern History (13 vol 1957-79), thorough coverage from 1500 to 1900 * Black, Jeremy. A History of Diplomacy (2010) * Calvocoressi, Peter. World Politics since 1945 (9th Edition, 2008) 956pp excerpt and text search * E. H. Carr Twenty Years Crisis (1940), 1919–39 * Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500-2000 (1987), stress on economic and military factors * Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy (1995), not a memoir but an interpretive history of international diplomacy since the late 18th century * Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848 (Oxford History of Modern Europe) (1994) 920pp; history and analysis of major diplomacy * Taylor, A.J.P. The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 (1954) (Oxford History of Modern Europe) 638pp; history and analysis of major diplomacy * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. * Contact us

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011

Mikhail Gorbachev lambasts Vladimir Putin's 'sham' democracy Former Soviet leader launches harshest criticism yet of Russia's ruling regime ahead of 80th-birthday celebrations * News * World news * Vladimir Putin Mikhail Gorbachev lambasts Vladimir Putin's 'sham' democracy Former Soviet leader launches harshest criticism yet of Russia's ruling regime ahead of 80th-birthday celebrations * o o o reddit this * Miriam Elder in Moscow * guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 February 2011 18.56 GMT * Article history Mikhail Gorbachev Mikhail Gorbachev accuses Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin of arrogance over their plan to jointly decide who should run in next year's presidential elections. Photograph: Andrey Smirnov/AFP/Getty Images Russia under prime minister Vladimir Putin is a sham democracy, Mikhail Gorbachev has said in his harshest criticism yet of the ruling regime. "We have everything – a parliament, courts, a president, a prime minister and so on. But it's more of an imitation," the last president of the Soviet Union said. Gorbachev, who oversaw the softening of the communist system and subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, has become increasingly critical of the modern Russian state, accusing its leaders of rolling back the democratic reforms of the 1990s. Speaking at a press conference ahead of his 80th birthday, Gorbachev criticised Putin for manipulating elections. In response to the prime minister and former president's comments that he and his protégé, President Dmitry Medvedev, would decide between them who would run for office in March 2012, Gorbachev said: "It's not Putin's business. It must be decided by the nation in elections." He called Putin's statements a sign of "incredible conceit". Asked how he thought the regime approached human rights, Gorbachev said: "There's a problem there. It's a sign of the state of our democracy." He was echoing statements made by Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, during a visit to Russia last week. Gorbachev said United Russia, the ruling party founded with the sole goal of supporting Putin's leadership, was a throwback. "United Russia reminds me of the worst copy of the Communist party," he said. "We have institutions but they don't work. We have laws but they must be enforced." Its stranglehold over political life would eventually backfire. "The monopoly ends in rotting and hampers the development of democratic processes." Gobachev said he did not like how Putin and Medvedev were behaving. "It's a shame that our modern leaders aren't very modern," he said. Gorbachev now runs a charity foundation that will hold a gala at the Royal Albert Hall in London on 30 March to mark his birthday. He co-owns the country's leading opposition newspaper, Novaya Gazeta. Held up in the west as a hero for his softening of the Soviet system and eventual acceptance of its fall, Gorbachev remains widely despised inside Russia, where he is seen as a traitor who allowed the empire to crumble and ushered in a period of great uncertainty. Over the years he has aligned himself with the cause of Russia's sidelined liberals. On Monday, Gorbachev called the regime's campaign against jailed oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky politically motivated. "Politics shouldn't have been involved in [the case], but they were," he said. He noted the case of Natalya Vasilieva, a court clerk who worked on the Khodorkovsky trial and broke ranks to publicly announce that the judge had been pressured throughout and had a verdict and sentence pushed on him. "I fully believe her," Gorbachev said. "People can't stand it anymore – she saw what was happening with her own eyes." • This article was amended on 22 February 2011 to restore missing text in the third paragraph. * Print thisPrintable version * Send to a friend * Share * Clip * Contact us * larger | smaller World news * Vladimir Putin · * Russia · * Europe · * Dmitry Medvedev · * Mikhail Gorbachev More news * More on this story * putin and medvedev Medvedev wants to stay on as Russian president, says leading MP Medvedev set to defy pact with prime minister Vladimir Putin and seek second term, claims prominent politician * Vladimir Putin pledges to spend £32bn on increasing Russian life expectancy * Medvedev guards splash out on £6,500 bathtub * Dmitry Medvedev unveils monument to former Russian president Boris Yeltsin Buy Mafia State mafia state 1. • Buy Mafia State from the Guardian Bookshop and save £7 # • Buy the ebook See also * 27 Oct 2010 Russia's Afghan agenda * 27 Oct 2010 Mikhail Gorbachev says Russia is moving 'away from democracy' * 2 Mar 2011 Mikhail Gorbachev awarded top honour on 80th birthday * 17 Aug 2011 Mikhail Gorbachev: I was too soft on Yeltsin * Print thisPrintable version * Send to a friend * Share * Clip * Contact us * Article history Ads by Google * Expatriate Savings Advice £25k-£1m Or £250+ Regular Savings? Find The Best Interest Rates Today! www.OffshoreInvestmentDesigner.com * Is Jesus Really God? Scholars Examine the Facts About Jesus' Claims to be God Y-Jesus.com * Visa Application forms Apply for Immigration To Australia Online Visa Eligibility Assessment. Immigration.Australia.Online.Service.migr... * License/buy our content * | Privacy policy * | Terms & conditions * | Advertising guide * | Accessibility * | A-Z index * | Inside the Guardian blog * | About us * | Work for us * | Join our dating site today * © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

http://www.smh.com.au

Echoes of the past in asylum seeker policies This year marks the 110th anniversary of Federation in Australia, which was gloriously proclaimed in May 1901 at the Exhibition Building in Melbourne. And this week it was 110 years ago that the Commonwealth of Australia was proclaimed by Lord Hopetoun on January 1, 1901 in Centennial Park, Sydney. But just how glorious were the beginnings of this nation? The centenary of Federation in 2001 was cause for celebration, but perhaps its 110th anniversary might be an opportunity to be more circumspect, or at the very least, more reflective. There were many reasons that pushed Australia towards Federation. Issues of trade, transport, taxes, defence and national identity were at play. But among these reasons was a darker purpose (if you'll excuse the pun). There was a pervasive view that the new Australia should be primarily for those of British descent. The fear of non-white immigration banded the Australian population together, with the view that uniting the colonies would enable Australia to strengthen its immigration laws. Advertisement: Story continues below It was our first prime minister, Edmund Barton who, in 1901, was quoted as saying "I do not think that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality . . . These races are, in comparison with white races . . . Unequal and inferior." It's timely that 110 years later we pause to consider what's changed. Certainly, the overtly xenophobic attitudes of yesteryear have all but vanished. Those who believe in white superiority are very much on the fringe of our society. But below the surface some alarming similarities rear their ugly head. In 1901 non-white immigrants were accused of being a threat to national security, the job market and cultural identity. Now, 110 years later these criticisms are often still leveled at migrants. In recent times media, politicians and the wider population have taken aim at migrants' cultural dress, criticising burqas and turbans. International students have been berated for daring to voice their complaints, suffering simplistic "love it or leave it" retorts. At the time of Federation it was a similar sentiment of rejecting "otherness" that led to the creation of the notorious Immigration Restriction Act in 1901. Later known as the White Australia Policy, this law enshrined Australians' desire for racial purity, allowing British or some Northern Europeans to arrive, while rejecting coloured aliens. Of course, the policy has long been disbanded. But 11 decades later we still treat arrivals in Australia differently. It's estimated that there are about 50,000 people overstaying their visas in Australia, with most of these being British. Yet the government focuses its attention on detaining genuine refugees offshore in an effort to be seen to be protecting our security. This is the modern-day action that would be most at home in 1901. Our leaders' pledges to "stop the boats", towing boats full of refugees out to sea, or the determination to detain arrivals, including more than 800 children, in remote centres certainly evoke the spirit of that long-discarded policy. Just as they did at the time of Federation, the facts mean little in the public debate. In 1901 the rate of population growth was alarmingly low yet the concept of migration caused alarm. Today, Australia receives less than 2 per cent of the world's refugees, rarely filling its humanitarian quota of asylum seekers each year. Yet paranoia and fear persist, as we're lead to believe that boatloads of "queue jumpers" arrive daily to take advantage of our welcoming nature. The horrific tragedy at Christmas Island a few weeks ago was met with much sympathy at the loss of dozens of lives. But underneath that sympathy was an unstated but callous attitude that "this is what happens when you try to enter illegally". This was seen when Opposition Leader Tony Abbott vocally called for a return to previous Coalition policies that he claims have "worked" in the past. Abbott neglected to mention that those policies included deportation of refugees, including women and children, back to countries where they were still in danger. These dangers have been detailed in the Edmund Rice Centre Research Report, Deported to Danger. The subsequent documentary aired on SBS, A Well-Founded Fear, details the fate of these deported refugees, some of whom have been arrested or gone missing. Actions like these might be easy to dismiss as part of our dark past if they happened 110 years ago. But today they should be called what they are; inhumane acts of cruelty. At some stage we must ask ourselves, why have people always been the worst thing that could ever arrive on Australian soil? Is this a hangover from a British ideal that formed the core of our national identity, or have we made a serious failure to advance in this regard? This issue is about a relatively miniscule number of human beings who have lived through hell and have turned to us for help. Our ability to respond to them with humanity, and to treat all people with respect is not just a matter that will be confined to history books. It defines us as a nation. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/echoes-of-the-past-in-asylum-seeker-policies-20110106-19gwf.html#ixzz1bO3cgsx1 Copyright © 2011 Fairfax Media

http://www.detiknews.com

7 Kelemahan UU Intelijen versi Masyarakat Jakarta - UU Intelijen disahkan DPR Senin lalu. Namun, berbagai pasal krusial langsung mendapat kritik dari masyarakat. Dari persoalan definisi, tugas hingga ruang lingkup intelijen dan sanksi pidananya. Berikut sedikitnya tujuh kelemahan UU Intelijen yang terangkum dalam diskusi di Komisi Informasi Pusat (KIP), Jl Abdul Muis, Jakarta, Jumat (14/10/2011). Acara ini sendiri dihadiri KIP, tokoh masyarakat dan berbagai LSM yang tergabung dalam koalisi Advokasi UU Intelijen seperti Imparsial dan Elsam. Sementara Komisi I DPR yang diundang tidak hadir tanpa alasan hingga diskusi selesai. 1. Menurut Imparsial, UU tersebut bukan merepresentasikan UU Intelijen melainkan UU Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN). Sebab, 80 hingga 90 persen isi Undang-undang mengatur badan intelijen tersebut. "Ada delapan sampai sembilan institusi intelijen di Indonesia. Ada intelijen militer seperti teritorial, keimigrisian, bea cukai, kejaksaan, polisi. Ada intelijen dari lulusan sekolah intelijen negara, ada intelijen dari polri, ada dari militer. Tetapi yang diatur UU Intelijen, 80 sampai 90 persen menunjuk BIN," kata Direktur Program Imparsial, Al Araf. "Mereka melapor ke institusi masing-masing tetapi juga melapor ke BIN. Ada dualisme kepentingan yang tidak diatur dalam UU," tandasnya. 2. Soal definisi rahasia negara yang menjadi objek utama UU Intelijen, tidak menyebutkan secara pasti apa itu rahasia negara. Pimpinan KIP, Alamsyah Saragih menyebutkan, definisi rahasia negara sangat abu-abu. "Rahasia intelijen merupakan bagian rahasia negara. Tapi pada scoope penulisannya justru kebalik, rahasia negara merupakan rahasia intelijen. Ini rancu," kata Alamsyah. 3. UU Intelijen menyebutkan informasi tentang kekayaan alam menjadi rahasia negara yang penting. Bila membocorkan, dapat dikenai sanksi penjara atau denda hingga Rp 500 juta. Namun, UU tersebut tidak menjabarkan lebih terang dalam penjelasan UU itu. "Itu menyangkut kontrak pertambangan, kita tidak tahu bunyi kontraknya seperti apa. Yang tahu ya hanya pengusaha-pengusaha saja. Saat kita tahu, dikira mencuri rahasia negara dan terancam sanksi pidana," ucap Al Araf. "Menurut saya, informasi intelijen ada di komunitas intelijen dan beredar di kalangan intelijen. Kalau sampai publik tahu, ya salah mereka yang membuka, membocorkan. Kalau alasanya ada hacker dan sebagainya, kalau itu ya pakai KUHP saja atau UU ITE," lanjutnya. Seirama dengan Imparsial, pasal kerahasiaan sumber daya alam juga dikritik KIP. "Misalnya saya ketua badan penanaman modal, mempresentasikan kekayaan alam untuk menarik investor di luar negeri, pulang-pulang bisa tidak ke kantor tetapi ke Rutan Cipinang. Karena dianggap membocorkan rahasia negara," timpal Alamsyah. 4. UU Intelijen menyatakan masalah pertahanan dan keamanan merupakan rahasia negara tanpa menyebutkan apa-apa saja yang dilindungi kerahasiaanya. Menurut Imparsial, pasal tersebut sangat luas mulai seperti kebijakan dan anggaran. "Kalau masalah rencana operasi intelijen, strategi, mekanisme dan taktik, itu di mana-mana memang rahasia. Tapi bagaimana dengan anggaran pertahanan kita? Apakah itu rahasia? Susah dong kalau anggaran pertahanan kalau tertutup. Kasus pengadaan. alutista, beberapa menjadi kasus korupsi. Dengan UU ini jadi semakin sangat sulit mengungkap korupsi dengan alasan rahasia negara," tukas Al Araf. 5. UU Intelijen membolehkan BIN menginterogasi orang-orang yang dicurigai atau menjadi target operasi intelijen. Menurut Al Araf, toleransi ini menunjukan kerja intelijen lemah. Sebab, interogasi merupakan tugas penegakan hukum bukan kerja intelijen. "UU Intelijen ada pasal penggalian informasi, boleh menginterogasi tersangka, baik kasus belum selesai atau sudah selesai. Istilah penggalian informasi dikenal di Orde Baru dengan cara pinjam meminjam tahanan. Istilahnya nge-bon dulu. Dibawa ke BIN lalu dibawa ke BAIS, dikembalikan sudah babak belur," kata Imparsial. "Intelijen kan prinsipnya melumpuhkan lawan tanpa menyentuh lawan. Kalau interogasi itu tugasnya penegakan hukum," tambah Al Araf. 6. UU Intelijen menyebut ketahanan ekonomi nasional merupakan rahasia negara. Namun saat Imparsial menanyakan ke DPR, lembaga pembuat UU itu kebingungan sendiri. "Seorang anggota Komisi I bilang seperti rahasia perbankan dan sumber-sumber ekonomi seperti saham, inflasi dan sebagainya. Saya bilang kan sudah ada institusi ekonomi yang mengatur ekonomi. Dia hanya menjawab, pokoknya ketahanan ekonomi. Bagi saya, DPR ini malas berfikir dan bekerja," tandas Imparsial. 7. KIP menyorot soal kinerja BIN yang sangat tertutup, apalagi nantinya dengan UU Intelijen bila telah aktif berlaku. Pimpinan KIP Alamsyah menyebutkan, justru lembaga intelijen dan penyelidikan di AS mencoba terbuka terhadap publik. "FBI dan CIA mempunyai website. BIN tidak. Di dalam websitenya, ada diatur apa-apa yang menjadi rahasia negara, apa yang bukan. Di Inggris, semua privasi dan properti warga negara harus dilindungi. Kita kan enggak jelas. Itu salah satu contoh," tegas Alamsyah. Copyright © 2011 detikcom, All Rights Reserved | Redaksi | Karir | Kotak Pos | Info Iklan | Disclaimer