ANARCHY in International Politics

ANARCHY in International Politics

by Group 1 (Rizka Nur Rachmayani ; Kurnia Sari Nastiti; Hendra Lukas)

Anarchy has made a lot of consequences in world politics as Keneth N.Waltz (1979) said in his article “The Consequence of Anarchy: The Anarchic Structure of World Politics”. Two important questions that might exist in our mind about anarchy are (1) whether anarchy is a result of a system or of a disorder; and (2) whether it still exist nowadays or not anymore. But, before we talk about anarchy itself deeper and deeper, it would be important for us to understand about political structure as a whole first as the basic knowledge to conceive the concept of anarchy in world politics then.

Generally, political structure are generated and are affected by the units of the system. The system itself is composed of a structure and of interacting units. The structure is the system wide-component that make it possible to think of the system as a whole, while the interacting units are something that could affect the structure such as the characteristics of units, their behavior, and their interactions. But, we have to separate those two terms in order to get well understanding about the concept. They are separated because by doing so we can figure out the expected effects of the structure on process and of process on structure. And it can only be done if structure and process are distinctly defined. Domestic political structure, for example, be defined by (1) the principle according to which they are organized or ordered; (2) the differentiation of units and specification of their functions; and (3) the distribution of capabilities across units. And these can be applied to international politics as well, but we should notice that there are also any differences between them. Here are some important things we should notice to distinguish those to terms.

First, the ordering principle of the two political structures (domestic political structures and international political structures) are distinctly different, and indeed, contrary to each other.[1] Domestic systems are centralizedhierarchic in which some are entitled to command but others are required to obey. Moreover, domestic political structures have govermental institutions and offices as their concrete counterparts. Meanwhile, international system are decentralized and anarchic. International politics, in contrast, has been called “politics in the absence of government” so that each is equal to the others (none is entitled to command, and none is required to obey). Since international politics are characterized by the absence of government, the order here is individualist in origin, spontaneously generated, and unintended as classical economic theory developed by Adam Smith. and

Second, related to the characteristic of the units, the international political systems (which is characterized by anarchic) entail coordination among a system’s units, and that implies the sameness. Here, states remain like units. But then, structures are defined not by all of the actors that flourish within them but by the major ones. And, as Kindleberger said in Watlz’s article, so long as the major states are the major actors, the structure of international politics is defined in terms of them.[2]

Third, it is important for us to understand about the distribution of capability. Especially in international political system, the units are almost undifferentiated. So,we have to use the assessment of capability in order to distinguish each units.

ANARCHIC STRUCTURES AND BALANCES OF POWER

One of characteristics of anarchy is violence at home and abroad. Generally, a nature of state is a war. Inconsiderable the war constantly occurs, but in anytime and anywhere, the war can break out whether or not to use force. Condition of it called violence which depends of time and place. Among some states at some times, the actual or expected occurrence of violence is low. Within some states at some times, the actual or expected occurrence of violence is high. The existence of more violence or expectation of violence at domestic level couldn’t be taken as an indicator of its being more anarchic than international politics because of the existence in the former of a body with the monopoly of the legitimate use of force. Among men, as among states, anarchy, or the absence of government, is associated with the occurrence of violence (Waltz:39). This is so because if we pursue this line of argument it becomes clear that the larger the number of occurrences of violence, the more anarchic a system is. The government’s monopoly on the use of legitimate force is at least as anarchic as international politics in the sense of increased expectation of violence is an effective government. The legitimate consist of public agents are organized to prevent and to counter the private use of force. They do that and the citizen is defended of them and has a self-help of that.

In a structural system that anarchy, the state must act solely on the basis of their own interests, which means the pursuit of power as much as possible. In an anarchic system, states can not rely on the security and viability of other countries or institutions, but in his own ability (self-help), which collects a variety of ways, especially (but not the only) military to wage war against another country. However, the need for a country to defend itself by strengthening its military power, for others a threat and demanded that other countries do the same, and known as the dilemma of security (security dilemma).

To emphasize the importance of structure as a shaper of behavior state, neorealist distinguish explicitly anarchic character of international politics with domestic politics is hierarchical, which describe two different systems of organizing principles (the principle of reservation systems). Two other characteristics that shape the character of neorealist thought units in the system and distribution capacity in the system units (Waltz, 1979). Characters in the system unit refers to the functions performed by units within the system, namely the state. In the neorealist view, all units have the same functions that ensure survival. However, although all countries have the same function, countries differ in ability, as reflected in the distribution of power that is often not balanced and frequently changed. In summary, as written by Waltz, all countries have a common task, but not the ability to run it. The difference is in capability, not on their function.

Here anarchism articulating social order where no one can oppress or exploit another person, one in which everyone has equal opportunity to achieve material and moral development to the fullest. The traditional definition of anarchism as shown above, must be understood as a starting point, an articulation to respond positively to the community context in which minority communities (who holds the authority in state institutions, religious institutions, educational institutions, economic institutions and other elitist institutions ) has the authority to control various aspects of community life majority.

The vision of anarchy anarchy is the ideal which must then be explained as a possibility and the potential existence of mankind. In further development, through a variety of reinterpretation, we meet a variety of articulation anarchy that emphasizes continuity of the struggle that no limits to broaden the scope of freedom, which is consistently based on: opposition to authority. In general, the anarchist opposition to authority is installed on the opposition to state institutions and religious institutions. But the anarchist opposition to authority is a rejection of human alienation (which is regulated by the government) on potential, ability and desire / will of man. Although basically anarchy against the authority, of course there are exceptions in critical condition when the leadership and representation can be avoided temporarily.

Kenneth Waltz has contributed a tremendous impact in understanding the approach of realism (structural realism / neo-realism) in his book Theory of International Politics (1979). The key assumptions are proposed, among others, the condition of anarchy state relations with other actors, the structure of the system greatly affect the behavior of actors, self-interest forced the country who live in conditions of anarchy choose to help themselves rather than cooperation; state is a rational actor will choose the strategy to maximize profits and minimize losses; important problem most of the conditions of anarchy is a system to survive, and the country to see all the other countries as potential enemies and which can be a threat to national security, causing security dilemmas that affect the foreign policy of each countries.

But, in many explanation about the anarchy, our group deduced that anarchy is “a result of disorder” than “the result of the structure”. Because anarchy has been the characteristic of int’l political system which is “politics in the absence of government”, and lack of order. And we know that anarchy is associated with the occurrence of violence. When the state don’t have an order, the conduction of the world couldn’t be controlled. And the absence of government is associated with the occurrence of violence. State, like humans, they have a moral relationship and present cooperation and avoid conflict, to ensure the necessary cooperation and human rights are guaranteed. The themes developed in the world order does not only issues of war and security, by what the military does not always become an instrument in world politics. This makes the main actor is no longer the country, but also individuals, non-governmental organizations, multinational companies and other non-State actors. In international relations not only inter-governmental relations are preferred, but also studied the relationship between individuals, community groups and private. Relations between people who are more cooperative than the relationship with the government. World with a large number of transnational networks will be more peaceful. Nevertheless, the world have an order, world government, and the other actors, anarchy absolutely still exist nowadays. But, we should notice that anarchy can also be minimalized through cooperation, negotiations,etc.

And we can analyze the concept with the case study about the conflict between North and South Korea regarding the Cheonan Shipin 2010. South Korea’s navy warships, Cheonan, was drowned because it was bombed by North Korea. North Korean submarines had fired a torpedo which makes the ship splitted in two and sank in the Yellow Sea border on 26 March, which killed 46 sailors in South Korea. Because of that, South Korea reported the case to UN and they believed that North Korea attack their ship. This case is an act of anarchy. the accident was the result of a striking attack from North Korea's missiles, so, the situation in there are chaos, destruction, and this death. This accident can create stability in the Asian region will become unstable. this is an indicator that the act of anarchy is not one of important measures like the realist perspective. North Korea had violated the agreement that has been made with the United Nations/ UN Charter, the ceasefire agreement, and agreement of inter-Korean cooperation framework in sunshine policy. North Korea denies responsibility for the incident. Though there is evidence of UN intelligence agency stating that the North Korean guilty. The proof is the finding of the same missile as north korea missile, created by china and Russia. So, UN did investigation and aided by intelligence agencies of several countries to seek evidence and completion of this case .UN is an important international organization to help resolve world peace and have the right to impose punishment on parties that have been interfered world security and violated the agreement that has been made. South Korea and the United States to seek punishment to North Korea in the UN Security Council relating about Cheonan was boomed, but China and Russia, two major allies of North Korea, apparently reluctant to join. Both Russia and China are the owner of a veto. Nevertheless the United Nations while respecting the principles of objectivity and impartiality in distinguishing between right and wrong. But with the evidence, the United Nations as a world government, striving for the best. If seen from this case, we review that is the problem of anarchy that occurred was caused by the absence of government. If there is an order and structure of the hierarchy, this action must be minimized. Because if there is no United Nations, the international countries in the world think about the benefits of their presence among other countries. They continue to struggle to gain power, maintain their existence, and achieve their interests .because they are not regulated in the legitimate of force and order.

Sources :

.Waltz, Keneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics

Waltz, Keneth N, The Consequences of Anarchy “The Anarchy Structure of World Politics” in Art, Robert Jervis. 2009. International Politics Concept & Contemporary Issue(9^th Editions). US : Pearson Education, Inc

www. Asianew.com

http://www.voanews.com/indonesian/news/Seoul-Torpedo-Korea-Utara-Tenggelamkan-Kapal-Cheonan-94203779.html (diakses 26 September 2010)

http://vibizdaily.com/detail/internasional/2010/06/28/pemimpin_g8_kecam_tenggelamnya_kapal_cheonan ((diakses 26 September 2010)

---

[1] Keneth N.Waltz. (1979). Theory of International Politics,p.32

[2] Ibid.p.36

Identitas Kultural dan Integrasi Nasional

Sepanjang wilayah Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara, terdapat bentuk pemisah antara nasional dan teritori yang dapat dibuat dan diolah seluruhnya dalam geografi politik baru. Hal yang dimaksud adalah batas. Meskipun tidak ada wewenang, tetapi tidak layu. Karena mereka merupakan bentuk dominan dari pemandangan politik. Negara merupakan sebagai dasar, legitimasi, dan unit yang universal dari organisasi geografi politik di Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara. Didalamnya terdapat integrasi nasional yang melindungi dan menjamin teritori dan masyarakat. Integrasi nasional bergantung pada kekuatan relatif dari kekuatan sentrifugal, yang memisahkan negara dan memperbesar perpecahan, serta kekuatan sentripetal, yang mempersatukan dan mengikat bersama.

Konsep negara dan bangsa sering salah pengertian dan tertukar. Negara adalah bentuk yang legal, ada entitas politik, dan punya entitas territorial yang jelas. Sedangkan bangsa merupakan entitas kelompok atau lebih gampang diartikan sebagai kelompok masyarakat besar yang layak dengan budaya bersama, sifat kepentingan yang sama seperti agama, bahasa, institusi politik, nilai, dan pengalaman sejarah. Tidak ada bangsa yang mempunyai negara sendiri, begitupula negara yang tidak ditinggali oleh satu bangsa. Negara dan negara-bangsa bukan persamaan. Itu berarti bahwa proses integrasi terlibat dalam pembangunan bangsa dalam negara atau membentuk negara-bangsa.

Tidak ada satu kekuasaan terbesar yang menghambat integrasi nasional di Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara daripada geografi yang sebanding antara negara dan bangsa. Dalam hubungannya, sering diasumsikan bahwa pertumbuhan kapitalisme ekonomi, modernisasi, perkembangan komunikasi, dan kenaikan spatial dan interaksi sosial mengurangi kesatuan subnasional dan menggantikan mereka dengan kesadaran dan identitas nasional sendiri.

Untuk mengetahui bagaimana pengaruh integrasi nasional pada perkembangan negara di Timur Tengah, maka kita harus membahas mengenai budaya politik, dimana keduanya saling mempengaruhi. Konsep budaya politik telah digunakan secara luas sebagai alat untuk menginterpretasikan tingkah laku politik. Dalam penggunaan biologi, budaya merupakan kehidupan organism yang medium. Sifat medium itu akan mempengaruhi kelangsungan hidup dan tingkah laku dari organism itu. Budaya dalam aplikasi sosial berarti kumpulan dari kepercayaan adat, kekuatan sosial, dan sifat material yang terdapat dalam tradisi yang berbeda pada kelompok sosial. David Easton mengatakan bahwa wewenang politik nilainya adalah “ who gets what, whem, and how”. Kepercayaan, kekuatan, dan sifat yang terdapat pada budaya sosial sangat mempengaruhi proses sosial politik. Bahkan aspek budaya yang tidak terlihat secara langsung dalam politik seperti sifat mnusia, juga mempengaruhi tingkah laku politik. Analisis budaya politik Arab seperti karakter diatas inilah yang akan dibahas lebih lanjut untuk mengetahui masalah legitimasi dalam politik Arab. Sidney Verba menyatakan dimensi dari budaya politik adalah kepercayaan bersama tentang identitas nasional dengan masyarakat tetangga mengenai output pemerintahan dan proses pengambilan keputusan.

Bangsa itu berada dalam tujuan yang kolektif dari kelompok orang untuk tinggal bersama dalam satu komunitas. Dalam dunia Arab terdapat hubungan dekat secara berkala dalam identitas bersama. Contohnya identitas nasional dari Jordania dan Kurds yang diwarnai dengan tribalism, Saudi Arabia dan Libia dengan symbol islamnya. Bangsa Arab sebagai kelompok individual dengan prinsip bangsa Arab yang muncul menjadi kesadaran bersama dalam sejarah yang sama serta budaya dan bahasa yang berbeda.

Tanda dari identitas modern Arab yaitu dalam dimensi etnik, bahasa Arab dan budaya, serta dalam dimensi agama, adalah Islam. Kedua dimensi ini, penduduk Arab sangat berlimpah dan homogen. Etnografer melihat bahasa sebagai kunci karakteristik dari komunitas etnik, meskipun fisik, warna kulit, dan pengalaman sejarah yang sama itu juga penting. Berdasarkan Atlas, negara Arab merupakan penduduk paling homogeny di dunia, hanya Sudan (dengan propinsi bukan Arab selatan), Moroko, dan Algeria ( dengan komunitas Berber mereka), serta Iraq ( dengan populasi Kurdishnya) yang rata-rata runtuh. Sisanya, mesir, Jordania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, dan revolusi Libya yang hampir sepenuhnya dalam budaya dalm bahasa Arab, dan banyak etnik kecik yang minoritas ditemukan, seperti Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Kuwait, dan negara Gulf. Dunia Arab sekarang juga terdapat kaum Islam yang sangat berlimpah. Hanya ada beberapa kelompok minoritas Kristen yang penting seperti di Syria, Jordania, Mesir, dan komunitas Paleastina. Dan banyak muslim yang ditemukan di negara Arab kecuali Sudan dan Lebanon.

Ditengah pluralism budaya di Timur Tengah, seperti budaya, bahasa, identitas, kelompok, maupun agama, pengaruh integrasi nasional cukup berperan. Karena dengan adanya integrasi nasional, maka kesatuan dari identitas yang telah dibangun di negara Timur Tengah khususnya Arab menjadi lebih kokoh. Tetapi integrasi nasional yang terjadi di Timur Tengah sekarang ini bersifat sentrifugal, yakni banyak hal yang memisahkan negara dan memperbesar perpecahan. Contoh pluralism yang ada di negara Timur Tengah adalah Mesir dan Libanon. Dimana pemerintahan Mesir adalah diktator, tetapi kondisi masyarakatnya begitu plural dan memungkinkan ada prototipe pluralisme bagi Timur Tengah. Sayangnya, kondisi negara Mesir saat ini tidak sekuat pada era 1950-an hingga pertengahan 1960-an, terutama di bawah pengaruh nasionalisme-Nasserisme. Sementara itu, komposisi masyarakat majemuk di Libanon, dalam kadar tertentu itu merupakan bentuk yang ideal untuk membangun pluralisme. Tetapi sekarang ini kondisi politik Libanon cenderung kisruh dan tidak demokrasi, sehingga terjadi konflik perpecahan dengan Israel. Contoh pluralisme agama yang juga membuat perpecahan. Pada awalnya, Muslim dan Kristen di Timur Tengah memang telah memberikan model ko-eksistensi dan kerjasama historis. Tapi ketika ada ketegangan, baik karena alasan religius atau ketika bahasa dan simbol religius yang sakral dilecehkan untuk alasan-alasan yang lebih duniawi, Timur Tengah dengan mudah memberikan model-model intoleransi, dan tentunya konfrontasi dengan kekerasan. Hal ini menyatakan bahwa integrasi nasional memang diperlukan dengan melihat situasi dan kondisi Timur Tengah sekarang ini. Jika menelaah dari situasi sekarang, sulit untuk dicapai suatu pluralism yang bersolidaritas ditengah perpecahan yang banyak terjadi, sebagai contoh konflik Iran-Iraq, maupun Israel-Palestina. Dan prospek kedepan mengenai integrasi nasional terhadap pluralism budaya yang ada di Timur Tengah bisa menjadi acuan untuk membentuk suatu negara Arab yang lebih bisa menjalin kerjasama terutama menyangkut agama.

Referensi :

Drysdale, A. dan G.H. Blake, 1985. “National Integration: Problems, Processes, and Prospects”, dalam The Middle East and North Africa: A Political Geography. New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, pp. 149-190.

Hudson, Michael C., 1977. “The Elements of Arab Identity”, dalam Arab Poltics: the Search for Legitimacy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 33-55.