Ing. Salih CAVKIC
Paris nor Brussels!
We want to live in peace with all
regardless of their religion, color and origin.
Therefore, we condemn any
kind of terrorism!
Ne više Pariz ni Brisel!
Mi želimo živjeti u miru sa svim našim
bez obzira koje su vjere, boje kože i porijekla.
Zato mi osuđujemo svaku vrstu terorizma!
Prof. dr. Murray Hunter
University Malaysia Perlis
Years to Trade Economic Independence for Political Sovereignty -
Aleš Debeljak +
Defense of Cross-Fertilization: Europe and Its Identity
Contradictions - Aleš Debeljak
ALEŠ DEBELJAK - ABECEDA DJETINJSTVA
ALEŠ DEBEJAK - INTERVJU; PROSVJEDI, POEZIJA, DRŽAVA
Rattana Lao holds a doctorate in Comparative and International
Education from Teachers College, Columbia University and is currently teaching in Bangkok.
Director of Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) in Ljubljana, Slovenia
Rakesh Krishnan Simha
Géométrie variable of a love triangle – India, Russia and the US
Amna Whiston is a London-based writer specialising in moral philosophy. As a
PhD candidate at Reading University, UK, her main research interests are in ethics, rationality, and moral psychology.
Eirini Patsea is a Guest Editor in Modern Diplomacy, and
specialist in Cultural Diplomacy and Faith-based Mediation.
Can we trust the government to do the right thing, are they really
care about essential things such as environmental conditions and
education in our life?
Univ. prof. Dubravko Lovrenović is one of the leading European Medievalist specialized in the Balkans, pre-modern and modern political history.
Postgraduate researcher in International Relations and Diplomacy at the Geneva-based UMEF University
professor of IT law and EU law at Banja Luka College,
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Studied in Belgrade (Political Science) and in Moscow (Plekhanov’s IBS). Currently, a post-doctoral researcher at the Kent University in Brussels (Intl. Relations). Specialist for the
MENA-Balkans frozen and controlled conflicts.
Dr. Swaleha Sindhi is
Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Administration, the Maharaja Sayajirao University of
Baroda, India. Decorated educational practitioner Dr. Sindhi is a frequent columnist on related topics, too. She is the Vice President
of Indian Ocean Comparative Education Society (IOCES). Contact:
It is an Ankara-based
journalist and notable author.
She is engaged with the leading Turkish dailies and weeklies for
nearly three decades as a columnist, intervieweer and editor.
Her words are prolifically published and quoted in Turkish,
French an English.
By İLNUR ÇEVIK
Modified from the original: They killed 1 Saddam and created 1,000 others (Daily Sabah)
Aine O'Mahony has a bachelor in Law and Political Science at
the Catholic Institute of Paris and is currently a master's student
of Leiden University in the International Studies programme.Contact:
Elodie Pichon has a
bachelor in Law and Political Science at the Catholic Institute of
Paris and is currently doing a MA in Geopolitics, territory and
Security at King's College London. Contact :
a MA candidate of the George
Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs. Her
research focus is on cross-Pacific security and Asian studies,
particularly on the Sino-U.S. relations and on the foreign policy
and politics of these two.
Born in Chile and raised in Rome, Alessandro
Cipri has just finished his postgraduate studies at the department
of War Studies of King's College London, graduating with distinction
from the Master's Degree in "Intelligence and International
Security". Having served in the Italian Army's "Alpini" mountain
troops, he has a keen interest in national security, military
strategy, insurgency theory, and terrorism studies. His Master's
dissertation was on the impact of drug trafficking on the evolution
of the Colombian FARC.
Ms. Lingbo ZHAO
is a candidate of the Hong Kong Baptist
University, Department of Government and International Studies. Her
research interest includes Sino-world, Asia and cross-Pacific.
Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus are investigative
journalists attached to the Swiss-based Das Magazin specialized
Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus are investigative journalists attached to the Swiss-based Das Magazin
Ms. Elodie Pichon, Research Fellow of the IFIMES Institute, DeSSA Department. This native Parisian is a Master in Geopolitics,
Territory and Security from the King’s College, London, UK.
Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey currently lectures on Digital-Diplomacy. "Mo"
has benefited from a diverse career in investment banking & diplomacy, but
his passion has been the new avenues of communication. He was Bosnia &
Herzegovina's first Ambassador to the United Nations, Agent to the
International Court of Justice, Foreign Minister & Signatory of the Rome
Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. He also played
American football opting for a scholarship to Tulane University in New
Orleans after being admitted to Harvard, oh well!!
Amanda Janoo is an Alternative
Economic Policy Adviser to governments and development
organizations. Graduate from Cambridge University with an MPhil in
Development Studies, Amanda worked at the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO) supporting government's with
evidence-based industrial policy design for inclusive and
sustainable growth. Her research focus is on the relationship
between international trade and employment generation. She has
worked throughout Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa promoting greater
economic self-determination and empowerment.
Michael dr. Logies,
The writer, editor-in-chief of
The Jakarta Post, took part
in the Bali Civil Society and Media Forum, organized by the
Institute for Peace and Democracy and the Press Council, on Dec.5-6.
Bellevrat is the WEO Energy Analysts
Kira West is the WEO Energy Analysts
Victor Davis Hanson
NRO contributor Victor Davis
Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author,
most recently, of The Second World Wars: How the First Global
Conflict Was Fought and Won.
Alexander Savelyev -
Chief Research Fellow at the Primakov Institute of World Economy and
International Relations (Moscow, Russia). In 1989-1991 was a member
of Soviet negotiating team at START-1 negotiations (Defense and
Ingrid Stephanie Noriega
Ingrid Stephanie Noriega is junior specialist in International
Relations, Latina of an immense passion for human rights, democratic
accountability, and conflict resolution studies as it relates to
international development for the Latin America and Middle East –
regions of her professional focus.
Bleak See on the Black Sea
Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarević
the latest events in the Black Sea two old questions are
reappearing. Both are inviting us for a repeated elaboration:
If a Monroe doctrine (about the hemispheric security
exclusivity) is recognised at one corner of the globe, do we have a
moral right or legal ground to negate it at the other corner?
Clearly, the ‘might-makes-right’ as a conduct in
international relations cannot be selectively accepted. Either it is
acknowledged to all who can effectively self-prescribe such a
monopoly of coercion, or it is absolutely condemned as contrary to
behaviour among the civilised nations.
Next to the first question is a right of pre-emption.
It is apparent that within the Black Sea theatre,
Russia acts in a pre-emptive and defensive mood. For the last 25
years, all the NATO interventions were outside its membership zone;
none of the few Russian interventions over the same period was
outside the parameter of former USSR.
Before closing, let’s take a closer look on the
problem from a larger historical perspective.
Una hysteria Importante
Historically speaking, the process of
Christianization of Europe that was used as the justification tool
to (either intimidate or corrupt, so to say to) pacify the invading
tribes, which demolished the Roman Empire and brought to an end the
Antique age, was running parallel on two tracks. The Roman
Curia/Vatican conducted one of them by its hammer: the Holy Roman
Empire. The second was run by the cluster of Rusophone Slavic
Kaganates, who receiving (the orthodox or true/authentic, so-called
Eastern version of) Christianity from Byzantium, and past its
collapse, have taken over a mission of Christianization, while
forming its first state of Kiev Russia (and thereafter, its first
historic empire). Thus, to the eastern edge of Europe, Russophones
have lived in an intact, nearly a hermetic world of universalism for
centuries: one empire, one Tsar, one religion and one language.
Everything in between Central Europe and Russia is
Eastern Europe, rather a historic novelty on the political map of
Europe. Very formation of the Atlantic Europe’s present shape dates
back to 14th–15th
century, of Central Europe to the mid-late 19th
century, while a contemporary Eastern Europe only
started emerging between the end of WWI and the collapse of the
Soviet Union – meaning, less than 100 years at best, slightly over
two decades in the most cases. No wonder that the dominant political
culture of the Eastern Europeans resonates residual fears and
reflects deeply insecure small nations. Captive and restive, they
are short in territorial depth, in demographic projection, in
natural resources and in a direct access to open (warm) seas. After
all, these are short in historio-cultural verticals, and in the
bigger picture-driven long-term policies. Eastern Europeans are
exercising the nationhood and sovereignty from quite a recently,
thus, too often uncertain over the side and page of history.
Therefore, they are often dismissive, hectic and suspectful, nearly
neuralgic and xenophobic, with frequent overtones.
Years of Useful Idiot
The latest loss of Russophone Europe in its
geopolitical and ideological confrontation with the West meant
colossal changes in Eastern Europe. One may look into geopolitical
surrounding of at the-time largest eastern European state, Poland,
as an illustration of how dramatic was it.
All three land neighbors of Poland; Eastern Germany (as the only
country to join the EU without any accession procedure, but by pure
act of Anschluss), Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union have
disappeared overnight. At present, Polish border countries are a
two-decade-old novelty on the European political map. Further on, if
we wish to compare the number of dissolutions of states worldwide
over the last 50 years, the Old continent suffered as many as all
other continents combined: American continent – none, Asia – one
(Indonesia/ East Timor), Africa – two (Sudan/South Sudan and
Ethiopia/Eritrea), and Europe – three.
Interestingly, each and every dissolution in Europe
was primarily related to Slavs (Slavic peo-ples) living in
multiethnic and multi-linguistic (not in the Atlantic Europe’s
conscripted pure single-nation) state. Additionally, all three
European fragmentations – meaning, every second dissolution in the
world – were situated exclusively and only in Eastern Europe. That
region has witnessed a total dissolution of Czechoslovakia (western
Slavs) and Yugoslavia (southern Slavs, in 3 waves), while one state
disappeared from Eastern Europe (DDR) as to strengthen and enlarge
the front of Central Europe (Western Germany). Finally, countless
centripetal turbulences severely affected Eastern Europe following
the dissolution of the Soviet Union (eastern Slavs) on its
Irredentism in the UK, Spain, Belgium, France and
Italy, or Denmark (over Faroe Islands and Greenland) is far elder,
stronger and deeper. However, all dissolutions in Eastern Europe
took place irreversibly and overnight, while Atlantic Europe
remained intact, with Central Europe even enlarging territorially
and expanding economically.
Deindustrialized, incapacitated, demoralized,
over-indebted, re-feudalized, rarified and de-Slavicized
Finally, East is sharply aged and depopulated –the
worst of its kind ever– which in return will make any future
prospect of a full and decisive generational interval simply
impossible. Honduras-ization of Eastern
Europe is full and complete. Hence, is it safe to say that if the
post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was overt and brutal,
this one is subtle but subversive and deeply corrosive?
The key (nonintentional) consequence of the Soviet
occupation was that the Eastern European states –as a sort of their
tacit, firm but low-tempered rebellion – preserved their sense of
nationhood. However, they had essential means at disposal to do so:
the right to work was highly illuminated in and protected by the
national constitutions, so were other socio-economic rights such as
the right to culture, language, arts and similar segments of
collective nation’s memory. Today’s East, deprived and deceived,
silently witnesses the progressive metastasis of its national
Ergo, euphemisms such as countries in transition
or new Europe
cannot hide a disconsolate fact that Eastern Europe
has been treated for 25 years as defeated belligerent, as spoils of
war which the West won in its war against communist Russia.
It concludes that (self-)fragmented,
de-industrialized and re-feudalized, rapidly aged rarified and
depopulated, (and de-Slavicized) Eastern Europe is probably the
least influential region of the world – one of the very few
underachievers. Obediently submissive and therefore, rigid in
dynamic environment of the promising 21st
century, Eastern Europeans are among last remaining
passive downloaders and slow-receivers on the otherwise blossoming
stage of the world’s creativity, politics and economy. Seems, Europe
still despises its own victims…
Admittedly, by the early 1990s, the ‘security hole’–
Eastern Europe, has been approached in multifold fashion: Besides
the (pre-Maastricht EC and post-Maastricht) EU and NATO, there was
the Council of Europe, the CSCE (after the 1993 Budapest summit,
OSCE), the EBRD and EIB. All of them were sending the political,
economic, human dimension, commercial signals, assistance and
expertise. These moves were making both sides very nervous; Russia
becoming assertive (on its former peripheries) and Eastern Europe
Until this very day, each of them is portraying the NATO enterprise
as the central security consideration: One as a must-go, and another
as a no-go.
No wonder that the absolute pivot of Eastern Europe,
and the second largest of all Slavic states – Ukraine, is a grand
hostage of that very dilemma: Between the eastern pan-Slavic
hegemony and western ‘imperialism of free market’.
Additionally, the country suffers from the consolidated
Klepto-corporate takeover as well as the rapid re-Nazification.
For Ukraine, Russia is a geographic, socio-historic,
cultural and linguistic reality. Presently, this reality is far less
reflected upon than the seducing, but rather distant Euro-Atlantic
club. Ukraine for Russia; it represents more than a lame
western-flank’ geopolitical pivot, or to say, the first collateral
in the infamous policy of containment that the West had continuously
pursued against Russia ever since the 18th century.
For Moscow, Kiev is an emotional place – an
indispensable bond of historio-civilizational attachment – something
that makes and sustains Russia both Christian and European. Putin
clearly redlined it: Sudden annexation of Crimea (return to its
pre-1954 status) was an unpleasant and humiliating surprise that
brought a lot of foreign policy hangover for both the NATO and EU.
Nevertheless, for the Atlantist alarmists (incl. the
Partition studies participants and
those working for the Hate industry),
military lobbyists and other cold-war mentality ‘deep-state’
structures on all sides, this situation offers a perfect raison
Thus drifting chopped off and away, a failed state
Ukraine itself is a prisoner of this domesticated security drama.
Yet again, the false dilemma so tragically imploded within this blue
state, of a 50:50 polarized and deterritorialized population, over
the question where the country belongs – in space, time and side of
history. Conclusively, Eastern Europe is further twisting, while
gradually combusted between Ukrainization and Pakistanization.
The rest of Europe is already shifting the costs of its own foreign
policy journey by ‘fracking’ its households with a considerably
(politically) higher energy bills.
Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarević,
Vienna, 30 NOV 2018
Author is chairperson and professor in international
law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria. He has authored
six books (for American and European publishers) and numerous
articles on, mainly, geopolitics energy and technology. For the past
decades, he has over 1,200 hours of teaching on the subject
International Law and Relations (including lecturing in both Kiev
and Moscow universities and Diplomatic Academy).
Professor is editor of the NY-based GHIR
(Geopolitics, History and Intl. Relations) journal,
and editorial board member of several similar
specialized magazines on three continents.
book, ‘From WWI to www. – Europe and the World
1918-2018’ is to be realised in December.
Earlier version of the text was published by the
Vision & Global Trends
 Annotated from one of my earlier writings, it states as
following: “…Early Russian state has ever since expanded north/
northeast and eastward, reaching the physical limits of its outreach
by crossing the Bering straits (and the sale of Russian Alaska to
the USA in 1867). By the late 17th
and early 18th
century, Russia had begun to draw systematically into
European politico-military theatre. (…) In the meantime, Europe’s
universalistic empire dissolved. It was contested by the challengers
(like the Richelieu’s France and others–geopolitical, or the
Lutheran/Protestant – ideological), and fragmented into the cluster
of confronted monarchies, desperately trying to achieve an
equilibrium through dynamic balancing. Similar political process
will affect Russian universal empire only by late 20
th century, following the
Soviet dissolution. (…) Not fully accepted into the European
collective system before the Metternich’s Holy Alliance, even had
its access into the post-Versailles system denied, Russia was still
not ignored like other peripheral European power. The Ottomans,
conversely, were negated from all of the security systems until the
very creation of the NATO (Republic of Turkey). Through the
pre-emptive partition of Poland in the eve of WWII, and successful
campaigns elsewhere in Eastern Europe, Bolshevik Russia expanded
both its territory and its influence westwards. (…) An early Soviet
period of Russia was characterized by isolated bilateral security
arangements, e.g. with Germans, Fins, Japanese, etc. The post WWII
days have brought the regional collective system of Warsaw Pact into
existence, as to maintain the communist gains in Europe and to
effectively oppose geopolitically and ideologically the similar,
earlier formed, US-led block. Besides Nixon’s reapproachment towards
China, the collapse of the Soviet Union was the final stage in the
progressive fragmentation of the vast Sino-Soviet Communist block
(that dominated the Euroasian land mass with its massive size and
centrality), letting Russia emerge as the successor. The sudden
ideological and territorial Soviet break-up, however, was followed
by the cultural shock and civil disorder, painful economic and
demographic crisis and rapidly widening disparities. All this
coupled with the humiliating wars in Caucasus and elsewhere, since
the centripetal and centrifugal forces of integration or
fragmentations came into the oscillatory play. Between 1989 and
1991, communist rule ended in country after country and the Warsaw
Pact officially dissolved. Subsequently, the Gorbachev-Jeltsin
Russia experienced the greatest geopolitical contraction of any
major power in the modern era and one of the fastest ever in
history. Still, Gorbachev-Jeltsin tandem managed to (re-)brand
themselves domestically and internationally – each got its own label
of vodka…” (Verticalization of Historical Experiences: Europe’s
and Asia’s Security Structures – Structural Similarities and
Differences, Crossroads – the Macedonian Foreign Policy Journal,
4 (1), page 111-112, M-MFA 2008)
 Ethnically, linguistically and religiously one of the most
homogenous countries of Europe, Poland in its post-communist
concepts reinvigorates the faith (as being, past the days of Tadeusz
Mazowiecki, massively de-Slavicized). No wonder as the Polish-born
Karol Józef Wojtyła served the Roman Curia as Pontifex Maximus
from 1978, to be replaced by the German-born Joseph
Ratzinger in 2005. Prizing Roman-Catholicism over ethnic and
linguistic roots, even harshly denouncing any Slavic sentiment as a
dangerous roter russischer Panslawismus, ‘fortress’ Poland
effectively isolates itself on a long-run as none of its neighbors
is Catholic. To the contrary, the four fifths of its land-borders
are shared with other Slavic states. To externally mobilize, the
elites (in any Eastern European state) would need an appealing
intellectual case – not a mare ethno-religious chauvinism. One of
the leading Croatian thinkers, Domagoj Nikolic says: “Austrian
Catholicism is not anti-Germanic, but Polish is anti-Slavic. Belgian
Catholicism is neither antifascism dismissive nor anti-Francophonic,
but our Croatian Catholicism is very anti-Slavic and is antifascism
trivializing… That undeniably leads us to conclude that (Slavic)
Eastern Europe suffers the authenticity deficit…Only the immature
nations can suffer such a historical disorientation.”
 Since the end of WWII in the Old Continent, there was no
other external military interventions but to the Europe’s East. To
be accurate, in the NATO history (nearly as double longer than the
history of the Warsaw pact), the only two interventions of that
Block ever conducted in Europe were both taking place solely on
Eastern European soil. While the two Russian (covert) interventions
since the end of the Cold War aimed at its strategic neighborhood
(former Soviet republics, heavily inhabited by ethnic Russian;
Abkhazia-South Ossetia and Crimea-East Ukraine), and were
(unsuccessfully) justified as the encirclement preemption, the
US-led NATO intervened overtly. In both NATO cases (Bosnia and
Serbia-Kosovo), it was well beyond any membership territory, and
short of any UN-endorsed mandate, meaning without a real
international legitimacy. “Humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was
never exactly what it appeared… It was a use of imperial power to
support a self-determination claim by a national minority”– wrote
Michael Ignatieff about the 1990s Balkans events, as fresh and
accurate as if reporting was from Sevastopol in spring 2014.
 This is further burdened by the imperialism in a hurry
– an inflammable mix of the
Lithuanian-Polish past traumas and German ‘manifest destiny’ of
being historically yet again ill-fated; impatient for quick
results – simply, unable to capitalize on
its previous successes.
 Does the declining big power of a lost ideological grip,
demoralized, with a disfranchised, ageing and rarified population,
of the primary-commodities export driven, but shrinking economy need
to be contained? Hence, what is the origin of anxity: facts or
confrontational nostaligia? The chief American chief Sovietologies
grip, ory-comodity driven economy Sovietologist, George Kennan
warned about the NATO expansion already in 1998: “I think it is a
tragic mistake. Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it
will affect their policies”. In that very interview, Kennan
predicted that the NATO Eastern enlargement will provoke a major
crisis in Europe with a hawks than ‘arguing’ a self-fulfilling
prophecy “you see, we always told you that is how the Russian are”.
Apparently, the Russian red-red line is Georgia and Ukraine. Kremlin
kept stressing that calmly, but repeatedly for nearly 20 past years.
Eventually, Georgia was territorially and politico-economically
wrecked as a functioning, viable state before it was allowed to
become a Western stronghold in Russia’s backyard. Georgia of that
2008. is an indication enough of how Ukraine – which is even a
front-yard for Russia – might end up beyond 2014.
 Putin’s “project is national, not imperial…to modernize
Russia which, like any other state, has security concerns...” –
fairly admits former French Minister of Defense Jean-Pierre
Chevčnement and confesses: “The pursuit of this conflict may turn
Ukraine into a lasting source of conflict between the EU and Russia.
Through a widely echoed ideological crusade, the US is attempting
both to isolate Russia and to tighten its control over the rest of
Europe”. /Chevčnement, J-P. (2015), No Need for this Cold War,
Le Monde diplomatique July 2015 (page 18)/
 By the most scholarly accounts, Ukraine is the world
champion in the re-feudalisation of its society. It goes well beyond
pure income levels and its rampant systematic distribution
inequality (inequality extraction ratio). Unfortunatelly, Ukraine is
the world champion in other endemic disproportionality, too – in an
asymmetry of wealth disposal and in a speed of acquiring it. The
combined wealth of Ukraine’s 50 riches oligarchs equalled 85% of
Ukraine’s (pre-war) GDP. Oligarhs needed only 16 years to accumulate
it (1991-2007). Even the Economist (a
well-informed magazine of a wealthy class-tolerant, neoliberal
orientation) questioned these practices, as stretching far beneath a
classical criminal activity and representing – in fact – a warfare
of elites against its own population (undeclared gerila war).
The Magazine concluded: ‘Ukraine today is as our western societies
would be without checks-and-balances
 Ukrainization could be
attributed to eastern and western Slavs– who are fighting
distinctions without significant difference. Pakistanization
itself should describe the southern Slavs’ scenery:
In lieu of truth and reconciliation, guilt is offered as a control
mechanism, following the period of an unchecked escalation, ranging
from a hysteria-of-a-small-difference to a crime -of-otherness
purge. Both models share about the same ending result: a
self-trivialization, barbarization and re-feudalization.
NOVEMBER 30, 2018
Demise of the ‘Here-Us-Now’ Civilisation
by Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic
major new report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), released in Korea on October 8 (2018), is
nearly 800 pages long and includes more than 6,000 scientific
references. However, it can be summarized in just few sentences with
absolutely horrific implications:
The average global temperature is now 1.0°C above its
pre-industrial levels. That increase is already causing more extreme
weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, and is
damaging untold number of land and sea ecosystems.
A 1.5°C increase, likely by 2040, would make things
worse. A 2.0°C increase will be far worse than that. Only radical
socio-economic and politico-diplomatic change can stop catastrophe.
leading climate scientists have warned that only a dozen years are
left for global warming to be kept to a maximum increase of 1.5°C.
Beyond that an irreversibility effect would be set in motion: even
half a degree increase will significantly worsen the risks of
drought, floods, extreme heat, hence poverty for hundreds of
millions of people.
To avoid the most serious damage requires
transforming the world economy within just a few years, said the
authors, who estimate that the damage would come at a cost of a
fantastic, and rather fracturing, $54 trillion. This transformation
goes – of course – beyond what we usually label as ‘economy’. It
will require a change of entire human dynamics; modes and preference
of how we extract, manufacture, distribute, consume, spend, live,
travel, power all that, think of and teach about it.
Reactions are unfolding: “Limiting global warming to
1.5°C above pre-industrial levels would be a herculean task,
involving rapid, dramatic changes in the way that governments,
industries and societies function” – says the Nature
magazine. Science Daily
predicts: “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid,
far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society …
With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting
global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with
ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society”.
Unholy war against everything beautiful on this
Nevertheless, for the informed and willing, all was
clear already with the Rio summit. Back then, I was quick to react:
it was me being among the very first in Europe to conceptualise and
introduce (and set as obligatory) the subject of Sustainable
Development (along with Environment Ethics) in the universities of
Europe. Thus, for the past two decades I’ve been teaching my
students that: “Currently, the amount of crops, animals and other
biomatter we all extract from the earth each year exceeds what such
a small planet can replace by an estimated 20% – meaning it takes
almost 14,4 months to replenish what we use per
annum – in consecutive
12 months – deficit spending of the worst kind.”
Lecture after lecture, generation after generation,
decade by decade, I have sought to educated my students that:
“Through pollution and global warming are legacies of products,
processes and systems designed without thought to the environmental
consequences, cohesion of international community along with rapid
introduction of new international policies and strategies in a form
of clean practices and technologies holds the solutions (e.g.
promoting greater coherence between energy, research and
environmental policies). Since the environmental degradation (incl.
the accelerated speed of extinction of living species – loss of
biodiversity) knows no borders – the SD (Sustainable Development) is
a matrix of truly global and timeless dimensions.”
In the meantime, the Climate Change nihilists and
prepaid lobbyists dominated media and our entire social narratives
by accusing this sort of constructivism and predictive education as
an environmental alarmism and scientific sensationalism. This is how
we lost almost three decades from Rio over Johannesburg, Copenhagen,
Kyoto and Paris to come to our current draw: an abyss of “only 12
years left” diagnosis.
How shall we here and now reconcile our past optimism
about the possibilities and the current pessimism about our
probabilities? How to register our future claims rapidly and
effectively on preservation of overall human vertical when we
systematically ridiculed and dismissed every science short of quick
profit (or defensive modernization), when we pauperized and
disfranchised so many people on this planet in the past few decades
like never before in history?
Hence, rapid and far-reaching changes to almost every
facet of society are needed to avoid catastrophic climate change,
reforms far beyond anything governments are currently either doing
or planning to do. Additionally, it requires complete reversion of
our life styles and socio-economic fashions, passions and drives –
e.g. elimination of “here-us-now” over-consumerism of everything
tangible and non-tangible.
Planet devastated by anti-intellectualism
Are we able to mobilise our socially fractured, and
anti-intellectualised globe that fast and that solid?
The world must invest $2.4 trillion in clean energy
every year through 2035 and cut the use of coal-fired power to
almost nothing by 2050 to avoid catastrophic damage from climate
change, according to scientists convened by the United Nations. That
of course includes elimination of oil and gas from our Primary
Energy Mix (PEM) as well as total eradication of the ICE-powered
cars (both diesel and petrol). All that is required within the
Which kind of existential stress this new “Cambrian
explosion” will cause on adaptive and non-adaptive inorganic
clusters and systems of our biota, and its group dynamics? What
impact it will have on the traditionally automotive-industry leaning
regions, and what on aviation industry – which, at least when comes
to continental Europe, could have been grounded decades ago – since
even at our current technological level, railroad transportation
would be cheaper faster safer than using planes? What implication
does it bring to the extremely crude-export dependent Middle East,
which is situated in a center of our planet but at the periphery of
Finally, who will invest to such a change? The
insurance and RE (reinsurance) industries are on a brink of
‘impossibility to perform’ clauses – as the severity and frequency
of (the so-called) ‘natural occurrences’ (such as floodings,
hurricanes, wet monsoons, conveyer belt currents and temperature
shifts, glacier retreat, etc) makes the insured case incalculable
and unpredictable. The link between Climate Change and global
financial crisis triggered by the insolvency of major investors is
thereby established. This is to name but few of numerous
implications and unanswered dilemmas yet even unasked question
No doubt, our crisis is real, but neither sudden nor
recent. Our environmental, financial and politico-economic policies
and practices have created the global stress for us and all life
forms of this planet. Simply, our
much-celebrated globalisation deprived from environmental and social
concerns, as well as from a mutual and fair cooperation (instead of
induced confrontation and perpetuated exclusion) caged us into the
ecological globalistan and political
terroristan. (Acidifying of oceans and brutalization of our
human interactions are just two sides of a same coin. What is the
social sphere for society that is the biosphere for the very life on
earth, since what what we euphemistically call anthropogenic
Climate Change is actually a brutal war
The world based on agreed principles that – besides
businesses and governments – involves all other societal
stakeholders, re-captured global cohesion and commonly willing
actions is not a better place. It is the only way for the human race
Deep and structural, this must be a crisis of our
cognitivity. Thus, the latest Climate Change (CC) Report is only
seemingly on Climate. It is actually a behavioristic study on (the
developmental dead end of) our other ‘CC’ – competition and
confrontation, instead of cooperation and (all-included) consensus.
Simply, it is the Report on our continued global
Jihad against the cognitive mind.
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
Vienna, 10 OCT 2018
Author is chairperson and professor in international
law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria. He authored six
books (for American and European publishers) and numerous articles
on, mainly, geopolitics energy and technology. For the past decades,
he has over 1,200 hours of teaching on the subject Sustainable
Development (Institutions and Instruments). No Asian century
is his forthcoming book, scheduled for later this year.
 Still today, sustainability is lacking an operational
definition: There is a controversy whether to consider a human-made
capital combined with a natural capital (weak sustainability) or
separately (strong sustainability). The central to this question is
to which extend a human capital or rather technology can substitute
the loss of natural resources.
OCTOBER 13, 2018
South-South cooperation has no
By Poppy S. Winanti and Rizky Alif Alfian
United Nations has declared Sept. 12 the International Day for
South-South Cooperation. This year’s celebration marks the 40th
anniversary of the adoption of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action for
technical cooperation among developing countries. The adoption of
this action plan highlights the importance of cooperation and
solidarity among countries of the South.
South-South Cooperation (SSC) in international
development initially was shaped by the “global South” countries’
shared experience of colonialism, underdevelopment and oppression.
Helping each other has been perceived as a way to convey solidarity
among the countries in question and to alter asymmetrical relations
dominated by the global North. Recent development shows a new
direction of SSC that is not only driven by the aspect of solidarity
but has become more pragmatic and strategic for emerging southern
Through the SSC initiatives, southern donors desire
to improve their regional and global reputation, to garner support
from other South countries in international forums and to pursue
their own broader economic agenda.
As a pioneer of South-South solidarity in 1950s that
has delivered overseas aid since 1967, Indonesia is also part of the
Southern donors contributing to South-South Cooperation. Hosting the
Bandung Conference of 1955, where representatives from 29
governments of Asian and African nations gathered to discuss the
role of the developing countries in the Cold War, Indonesia clearly
played a crucial role in the emergence of SSC.
Decades later, in 2018, Indonesia allocated Rp 1
trillion (US$67 million) in endowment funds for its overseas aid
activities, according to 2017 data from the Foreign Ministry. This
figure has grown significantly from $15.8 million disbursed in 2016.
For comparison, Indonesia spent only $57.4 million for its SSC
programs between 2000 and 2015. This shows that SSC plays an
increasingly important role in Indonesia’s foreign policy under
President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo.
As part of its efforts to advance its role in SSC,
Indonesia introduced a significant reform of SSC policies in 2010
that restructured overseas aid institutions, aligned SSC with
national development and foreign policy goals and increased funding
for SSC initiatives. This includes the establishment of a National
Coordination Team of South-South and Triangular Cooperation (NCT)
involving the National Development Planning Ministry (Bappenas), the
Foreign Ministry, the Finance Ministry and the State Secretariat.
Yet, NCT is only the first step for Jakarta in
achieving its main objective to strengthen Indonesia’s global new
role. To improve coordination and overcome fragmented authority in
Indonesia’s SSC policies, the government has begun to develop a
single, specialized agency to plan, manage and monitor Indonesia’s
SSC. The centralized agency was expected to be established by last
year, but consensus among the SSC key stakeholders regarding such
coordination is still pending.
Furthermore, questions remain several years after the
establishment of the NCT. These include how to deal with domestic
resistance despite growing international demand for Indonesia’s new
global role; and whose interests should be served to advance
Indonesia’s role under the SSC framework? How can programs be
effectively carried out while securing domestic support at the same
To generate domestic support, it is urgent to design
the SSC framework in line with domestic objectives. The ministries
stress that SSC is crucial to enhancing Indonesia’s profile,
protecting its sovereignty and facilitating access to
Indonesia may also utilize its SSC framework in its
efforts to cope with the rise of protectionism, as reflected in the
United States’ new tendency to focus on domestic issues and with
stricter environmental and quality standards, which currently cannot
be met by Indonesian producers in its traditional markets.
Improving its role through the SSC framework is an
alternative way for Indonesia to expose itself for possible economic
cooperation outside other means. Strengthening SSC can also be a way
to divert Indonesia’s exports away from its traditional export
markets to developing countries.
Domestic support for Indonesia’s global role through
the SSC framework can be generated through the engagement of the
private sector and civil society, which is still minimal. The
government also projects SSC as a platform to facilitate access of
Indonesia’s private sector to other developing countries’ markets.
Jakarta needs to focus on what it does best in
delivering programs under the SSC framework. Indonesia is regarded
quite successful in dealing with some crucial issues faced by many
developing countries, including curbing population growth through
family planning, managing foreign aid and establishing democratic
“Asia has no alternative but to become truly
multilateral, pan-continentally. This is impossible without its
champions of multilateralism – India, Indonesia and Japan…“ is a
famous claim of professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic, restated in
his ‘Indonesia – Pivot to Asia’ lectures. “South-south cooperation –
as launched in Bandung 1955 – is an indispensable to this quest to
‘Asian century’” – professor reminds us – “south-south is not a
choice but necessity, more survival than a policy option”.
Hence, let us conclude: Indonesia can also provide
technical assistance and capacity-building on these critical issues.
Indonesia’s rich historio-political and socio-cultural experience in
dealing with economic development and democratization are modalities
that should be fully exploited in advancing South-South cooperation.
In short, discovering and achieving a consensus among
the agencies responsible for the national coordination team of
south-south and triangular cooperation can be an entry point in
improving Indonesia’s standing in global politics.
About the authors:
Poppy S. Winanti is a Senior Lecturer at the
Department of International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Rizky Alif Alfian is a Researcher at the
Institute of International Studies, Department of International
Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia/Jogjakarta.
Early version of the text appeared in Jakarta Po
OCTOBER 3, 2018
and the SEA in the Asia’s Troubled waters
Subtheme: Border Security
The never ending disputes over a semi-enclosed sea, the South-China
Sea (SCS) was culminated in the consensus between the Philippines
and China in bringing the case before the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA). While the PCA under the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 1982) ruled in favor of the
Philippines and declare that China’s nine-dash line claims are
illegal, China has asserted that they will not obeys the final award
of the PCA. This paper seeks to analyze legal implications upon
China’s refusal on PCA’s award to Indonesia’s border security over
the waters around Natuna Islands. It further proposed what should be
done by Indonesia in anticipating both legal as well as political
consequences of such assertive reaction taken by China.
Prior to the PCA’s award, Indonesian President, Mr. Joko Widodo,
commented on the matter of the SCS disputes saying that while
Indonesia is located considerably near to the SCS, yet Indonesia
does not have a direct interest in the SCS. However, recent
development shows different position. During President Jokowi’s
visit to Natuna Islands recently, it was reminded that in 1996 China
has recognized Natuna’s waters as Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic
This paper argued that while the SCS disputes so far does not have
direct impact on Indonesia, yet, some areas of Indonesia’s EEZ in
Natuna Islands overlap with the China’s nine-dash line. Since China
has declared to refuse the award of PCA, Indonesia should make
further legal and policy framework in implementing its sovereign
rights over its EEZ in Natuna Islands. In addition to this strong
political assertion should also be taken in anticipating china’s
movement in the SCS through its nine-dash line claim.
Keywords: South-Cina Sea, Indonesia, EEZ, Border
State’s claim over the ocean has been
accommodated by the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC)
though a quid pro quo arrangement, that is something for something.
While Coastal States are given certain degree of sovereignty over
their surrounding oceans, yet other states interests should also be
respected, which include rights of navigation as well as ocean
resources usage rights. While such arrangement can be seen as a
‘package-deals’ offered by the LOSC, however, in practice
things would never be as easy as it could be. Complication arising
from LOSC’s arrangement varies from geographical condition of both
the coastal state and the ocean itself, to broader interests of
other states, in this case user maritime states. In addition to
this, the problem of maritime delimitation between adjacent states
poses another problem.
A never-ended problem related to maritime delimitation as well as
access to ocean resources, has been the issue of South-China Sea (SCS).
The SCS is a semi-enclosed sea which is surrounded by at least eight
States; China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the
Philippines and Taiwan. Such geographic location has made SCS
surrounded by the land territory of many states and thus the
sovereignty as well as sovereign rights of the surrounding states
upon the SCS became complicated. In addition to this, the SCS area
consists of four islands, which include Pratas, Macclesfield Bank,
Paracels and Spratlys. Upon such geographical complexion,
China declared its claim upon the SCS based on its map known as the
nine-dashed lines which encircle almost the entire SCS and within
which China claims are China’s historical waters over which it has
sovereignty. On the other hand, other littoral states are also
claiming sovereignty over small islands in the SCS, namely, Vietnam
claims the Spartly Island, while the Philippines and Brunei claims
the Kalayan Island Group (KIG).
While the overlapping claims remain, in May 2009 China submit a
claim before the United Nations, claiming several islands, which
include Spartly, Scarborough Soal, Paracel and others to be included
within its territory based on the nine-dashed lines map, combined
with occasional references to “historic waters.” In April 2012, the
Philippines Navy caught eight Chinas’ fishing vessels in Scarborough
Soal waters, that is 220 km off-shore Philippines. Is should be bear
in mind that the Scarborough Soal is claimed by several states,
namely China, the Philippines and Taiwan. In January 2013 the
Philippines submit its objection to the China’s nine-dashed lines to
the Permanent Court of Arbitration demanding the cancelation of the
nine-dashed line map proposed by China. Permanent Court Arbitration
(PCA) resulted on the illegitimate China’s claim, China has asserted
that they will not participate on the proceeding and neither obeys
the final award of the PCA.
This paper seeks to analyze legal implications upon China’s refusal
on PCA’s award to Indonesia’s border security over the waters around
Natuna Islands. It further proposed what should be done by Indonesia
in anticipating both legal as well as political consequences of such
assertive reaction taken by China.
2. The Philippines vs. China before the
Permanent Court of International Arbitration
While conflict between affected
littoral states over the South-China Se remains, in 2013 the
Philippines brought the case before the Permanent Court of
Arbitration. The disputes concerned was on the legal basis of
maritime rights and entitlements in the South-China Sea, the status
of certain geographic features in the South-China Sea and the
lawfulness of certain actions taken by China in the South-China Sea.
In brief, basically there are 4 (four) claim submitted by the
Philippines before the PCA.
Firstly, the Philippines seek advice from the PCA to solve existing
disputes over the SCS regarding the rights to occupy the SCS. More
specifically, asking PCA to declare that the rights to occupy the
SCS should be based on the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC)
rather than based on ‘historic rights’. Secondly, the Philippines
seek advice from PCA to solve maritime delimitation disputes over
the Scarborough Shoal
and certain resources in Spratly
Islands, which has been claimed by both Philippines and China.
Thirdly, the Philippines asking the PCA to solve matter related to
the validity of China’s claim over the SCS. The Philippines required
PCA to deliver award that China has conducted wrong doing upon their
actions, as follows:
Philippines’ rights in accordance with the LOSC with regard to
fishing, navigation and other natural resources exploration and
exploitation as well as the establishment of artificial islands;
Has failed to save
ocean environment by giving support to China’s fishermen, who has
caught the endangered species as well as the use of
non-environmental friendly fishing method which lead to the
destruction of coral reef ecosystem in the SCS; and
Causing the damage
on marine environment by the establishment of artificial islands as
well as reclamation in the area of seven coral reef areas in Spratly
Fourth, that China has worsened the dispute by
limiting Philippines’ access to Marine Detachment in Second Thomas
The SCS case between the Philippines and China, in
fact involves various legal aspect. However, crucial aspect that
worth to be discussed is the concept of ‘historical rights’ which
has been used as legal basis by China in claiming its sovereignty
over the SCS. As this turn out, PCA only used the LOSC as valid
legal basis in deciding the case. PCA further stated that:
arbitration concerned the role of historic rights and the Sumber of
maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain
maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of
generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China that were
alleged by the Philippines to violate the Convention. In light of
limitations on compulsory dispute settlement under the Convention,
the Tribunal has emphasized that it does not rule on any question of
sovereignty over land territory and does not delimit any boundary
between the Parties”.
In its decision, PCA was
award to the Philippines and declared that “the
Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to
reSumbers in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were
extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive
economic zones provided for in the Convention.
While the award clearly stated
that ‘historical rights’ were incompatible with LOSC, it is
interesting to find out the origin of ‘historic claim’ as well as
analyzing whether the term ‘historic
rights’ and ‘historic waters’ ever exist within both LOSC and other
customary international law of the sea.
Figure 1: China’s nine-dashed lines covering vast
majority of the SCS areas
3. Legal Implication on China’s refusal upon PCA
Upon PCA award, Chinese Government insists on the position that it
will not obey PCA Award due its absence during the trial. This
position was stated clearly by China through diplomatic notes titled
“Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China
on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration
Initiated by the Republic of Phillipines” dated 7th December
submitted before the court and Netherlands Government. In sum, the
diplomatic notes declared as follows:
“It is the view of China that the
Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over this
arbitration, unilaterally initiated by the Philippines, with regard
to disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China
Firstly, the essence of the subject-matter of the
arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over the relevant
maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope
of the Convention and is consequently not concerned with the
interpretation or application of the Convention.
Secondly, there is an agreement between China and the
Philippines to settle their disputes in the South China Sea by
negotiations, as embodied in bilateral instruments and the DOC. Thus
the unilateral initiation of the present arbitration by the
Philippines has clearly violated international law.
Thirdly, even assuming that the subject-matter of the
arbitration did concern the interpretation or application of the
Convention, it has been excluded by the 2006 declaration filed by
China under Article 298 of the Convention, due to its being an
integral part of the dispute of maritime delimitation between the
Fourthly, China has never accepted any compulsory
procedures of the Convention with regard to the Philippines' claims
for arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal shall fully respect the right
of the States Parties to the Convention to choose the means of
dispute settlement of their own accord, and exercise its competence
to decide on its jurisdiction within the confines of the Convention.
The initiation of the present arbitration by the Philippines is an
abuse of the compulsory dispute settlement procedures under the
Convention. There is a solid basis in international law for China's
rejection of and non-participation in the present arbitration.
Furthermore, China added more statement “[t]his shall
by no means be interpreted as China’s participation in the arbitral
proceeding in any form.” Upon such situation, Article 288 of
the LOSC and Article 9 of LOSC’s Annex VII provide:
a. Article 288 of the
Convention provides that “In the event of a dispute as to whether a
court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by
decision of that court or tribunal.
b. Article 9 of Annex VII to
the Convention provides that “If one of the parties to the dispute
does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its
case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the
proceedings and to make its award. Absence of a party or failure of
a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the
proceedings. Before making its award, the arbitral tribunal must
satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute
but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.”
It is clearly stated that in the situation whether
the arbitral have competence in deciding certain case, the authority
to decide is the arbitral itself and not the parties. In addition to
this, in the absence of one party in the dispute, another party have
the right to ask the arbitral to continue the proceeding. Thus, it
is submitted that the absence of one party cannot prevent the
proceeding to be continued. On the awards on jurisdiction, PCA
considered the application of Article 281 and 282 of the LOSC, which
allow a state to apply other dispute resolution method outside the
LOSC, if the parties agreed to. Article 281 and 282 of the LOSC
“If the States Parties which are
parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of
this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a
peaceful means of their own choice, the procedures provided for in
this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached by
recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does
not exclude any further procedure.
If the States Parties which
are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or
application of this Convention have agreed, through a general,
regional or bilateral agreement or otherwise, that such dispute
shall, at the request of any party to the dispute, be submitted to a
procedure that entails a binding decision, that procedure shall
apply in lieu of the procedures provided for in this Part, unless
the parties to the dispute otherwise agree.”
PCA considered the application of Article 281 dan 282
upon the following documents to find out whether both parties have
agreed on other dispute resolution method; (a) the 2002 China–ASEAN
Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (the
“DOC”), (b) a series of joint statements issued by the Philippines
and China referring to the resolution of disputes through
negotiations, (c) the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast
Asia, and (d) the Convention on Biological Diversity (the “CBD”) .
Nevertheless, PCA refused China’s argument which
stated that the Document of Conduct (DOC) agreed between ASEAN and
China was a political agreement and did not intended to be a binding
agreement which is applicable in disputes resolution method.
Since the DOC is silent on the binding settlement mechanism,
and does not exclude any other dispute resolution method, it
is argued that PCA can decide based on Article 281 and 282 of the
LOSC. PCA also finds out the same conclusion relating to Joint
Statement mentioned in China Diplomatic Notes. In relation to
the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the CBD,
PCA declared that while both agreements bind parties in the disputes
resolution chosen by the parties, there is no binding mechanism
within the agreement whatsoever. To conclude, there is nowhere
in those agreements prevent the Philippines to bring the case before
As this turn out, PCA reward the Philippines and
declared that China’s Claim over the SCS with its nine-dashed lines
as illegal and found China to be guilty of conducting illegal
maritime activities inside the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.
Upon such award, as stated, China refused to apply the award in any
cases. Furthermore, instead of moving away from the disputed area,
Chinese military and non-military vessels have regularly undertaken
activities to strengthen their de facto control of the area. China
seems to undertaken the passive assertiveness over the area and
avoiding assertive action which could lead to incident, while also
expanding its movement in the SCS. This condition brings
several legal implications to the neighboring adjacent states
surrounding the SCS, especially to ASEAN’s member states. This
includes an increase of China’s maritime power within the South Asia
region, which also effect the South-East Region. In addition to
this, it is assumes that China will strengthen its domestic law in
claiming several areas in the SCS. This way, a potent disputes may
arise between China and other claimant states, in particular ASEAN’s
member states. China aggressive response to the PCA’s award might
also bring further legal implication for less affected state like
Indonesia. While the SCS dispute does not directly affected
Indonesia at the moment, however, it might affected in the near
future. As an archipelagic state, Indonesia is entitled to draw
archipelagic baselines connecting the outermost point of its
outermost islands. Despite the fact that Indonesia does not
claim any of the disputed islands located in the SCS, Indonesian has
an outer island group, the Natuna Islands, which are adjacent to the
SCS. These Islands are used as Indonesian basepoints. Due to
Indonesia’s sovereignty over the Natuna Islands, consequently
Indonesia has the rights over certain areas of waters measures from
Natuna’s baselines in accordance with international law. From this
baselines Indonesia also entitles various maritime zones established
by the LOSC. This results in the fact that Indonesia has to
share such ocean with neighboring states which are also claimant
states in the SCS dispute, namely Malaysia and Vietnam. While
agreement has been reached over delineating the continental shelf
between states, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) delimitation remains
unsolved. If China strengthen its nine-dashed line claim and keep
asserting its military power within the area, it is possible that
China and Indonesia involve in a disagreement on maritime
delimitation around Natuna Islands.
to the PCA’s award, Indonesian President, Mr. Joko Widodo, commented
on the matter of the SCS disputes saying that while Indonesia is
located considerably near to the SCS, yet Indonesia does not have a
direct interest in the SCS. However, recent development shows
different position. During President Jokowi’s visit to Natuna
Islands recently, it was reminded that in 1996 China has recognized
Natuna’s waters as Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
paper argued that while the SCS disputes so far does not have direct
impact on Indonesia, yet, some areas of Indonesia’s EEZ in Natuna
Islands overlap with the China’s nine-dash line. Since China has
declared to refuse the award of PCA, Indonesia should make further
legal and policy framework in implementing its sovereign rights over
its EEZ in Natuna Islands. In addition to this strong political
assertion should also be taken in anticipating china’s movement in
the SCS through its nine-dash line claim.
See further PCA Case Number 2013-19 in the Matter of the
South-China Sea Arbitration before the Arbitral Tribunal Constituted
Under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea between the Philippines and the People Republic of China,
available on-line at
accessed on 4 May 2017 at 9:56 am.
Read further Kristiyanto, Kristiyanto, Puspitawati, Dhiana dan
Ardhiansyah, Agis, Konsep Historical Rights dalam Sengketa Laut
Tiongkok Selatan berdasarkan Putusan PCA Case Number 2013-19 in the
Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines
and China, Final Essay, Law Faculty, Brawijaya University, 2017.
Press Release Permanent Court of Arbitration
tertanggal 12 July 2016 which
giving unanimous award
to the Philippines over the SCS
Referes to the LOSC. See further
30 November 2016.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
Bleak See on the Black Sea - Prof. Anis H.
Report: Demise of the ‘Here-Us-Now’ Civilisation - by Prof. Anis H.
cooperation has no alternative -By Poppy S. Winanti and Rizky Alif
and the SEA in the Asia’s Troubled waters - Dhiana Puspitawati
Keeping the Nuclear Arms Control alive - Alexander Savelyev[*]
trafficked, unwanted – A view on the US migration policy development -
the Humanitarian Law in contemporary international relations - (Refugee
Status – a political challenge and legal limbo) - Dr. Nafees Ahmad
the ‘Willing’ in Central Europe – Axis of the 1930s coming back ? - By
construct of the Contemporary International relations - Amel Ouchenane
Post-War Order Is Over - (And not because Trump wrecked it.) - By Victor
Junk - Is Earth the Largest Garbage Dump in the Universe? - Robert
is the Korean Reunification not to Work anytime soon -
(Denuclearisation of the Far East long way Ahead)
PARITY BE MORE PROPORTIONAL? - Zlatko Hadžidedić
– EU: Waiting for Godot - By Aaron Denison
De-evolutioning with Brexit and Trump: Where Marx went wrong -
without Colonies – Dakhla without Potemkin Village - Emhamed Khadad
of the Banking Industry – Not without Blockchain - By Oliver Aziator
Change: Unfit for the residual heat - By Élie Bellevrat and Kira
European Commission's Strategy for the Western Balkans - Bureaucrats
Crusade - By Zlatko Hadžidedić
Shared - the EU twin from Asia: New memories, old wounds - Rattana
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic
Editor - Geopolitics, History, International Relations (GHIR) Addleton Academic
Publishers - New YorK
Senior Advisory board member, geopolitics of energy Canadian energy research
institute - ceri, Ottawa/Calgary
Advisory Board Chairman Modern Diplomacy & the md Tomorrow's people platform
Head of mission and department head - strategic studies on Asia
Professor and Chairperson Intl. law & global pol. studies
Critical Similarities and Differences in SS of Asia and Europe - Prof.
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
MENA Saga and Lady Gaga - (Same dilemma from the MENA) - Anis H. Bajrektarevic
HE ONGOING PUBLIC DEBT CRISIS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: IMPACTS ON AND LESSONS
FOR VIETNAM - Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan, Assos. Prof. Nguyen Linh
Change and Re Insurance: The Human Security Issue SC-SEA Prof. Anis
Bajrektarevic & Carla Baumer
(Researcher and Lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Politics,
University of Jayabaya)
the ‘crisis of secularism’ in Western Europe the result of multiculturalism?
Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella
A Modest “Australian” Proposal to Resolve our Geo-Political Problems
Were the Crusades Justified? A Revisiting - Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella
Earned an MA in International Relations from the University of East
Anglia in Norwich, United Kingdom in 2013. Her research interests include
foreign policy decision-making, realism and constructivism, and social
psychology and constructivism.
is an independent researcher specialized in International Politics and Peace
& Conflict Studies with a regional focus on the Balkans and the Middle East.
Founder of Internacionalista
Săo Paulo, Brazil
Brazil – New Age
political character of Social Media: How do Greek Internet users perceive and
use social networks?
SWISS UMEF UNIVERSITY
is a master`s degree student on the University for Criminal justice and Security
in Ljubljana. She obtained her bachelor`s degree in Political Science- Defense
George Mason University School of Policy, Government, and
Intl. Relations She focuses on Russia and Central Asia. Ms. Brletich is an
employee of the US Department of Defense.
Interview on HRT-Radio
Prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarević
Dr Filippo ROMEO,
is the outspoken Indonesian thinker,
social-cause fighter and trendsetter. She is the author of Julia’s Jihad.
Mads is an intern at PCRC. Mads Jacobsen is from Denmark and is currently
pursuing his Master's degree in 'Development and International Relations' at
University of Bihac, Faculty of Education,
Department of English Language and Literature - undergraduate
University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Philology, Department of English Language
and Literature - graduate study
Rakesh Krishnan Simha
New Zealand-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst. According to him, he
writes on stuff the media distorts, misses or ignores.
Rakesh started his career in 1995 with New Delhi-based Business World magazine,
and later worked in a string of positions at other leading media houses such as
India Today, Hindustan Times, Business Standard and the Financial Express, where
he was the news editor.
He is the Senior Advisory Board member of one of the fastest growing Europe’s
foreign policy platforms: Modern Diplomacy.
Daniele Scalea, geopolitical
analyst, is Director-general of IsAG (Rome Institute of Geopolitics) and Ph.D.
Candidate in Political studies at the Sapienza University, Rome. Author of three
books, is frequent contributor and columnist to various Tv-channels and
Research Associate at Institute of High
Studies in Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (IsAG), Rome, Italy, and Ph.D.
researcher at University of Padova, is IMN Country Representative in Italy.
Foreign Policy Advisor to former Croatian
President Stjepan Mesić
Graduate of the London School of Economics,
prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić is a prominent thinker,
prolific author of numerous books, and indispensable political figure of the
former Yugoslav socio-political space in 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.
Mr. Nicola Bilotta
Nicola Bilotta has a BA and a MA
in History from Universitŕ degli Studi di Milano and a MSc in Economic History
from the London School of Economics. He works as a Global Finance Research
Assistant at The Banker (Financial Times) and collaborates as an external
researcher at ISAG (Istituto di Alti Studi di Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliari)
Date and Place of Birth: April 22, 1943 – Amurang,
North Sulawesi, IndonesiaEducation: Bachelor in Public
Writer was a member of the House of Representatives
of Indonesia (DPR/MPR-RI) period of 1987-1999, and Chairman of
Committee X, cover Science and Technology, Environment and National
Development Planning (1988-1997).
Currently as Obsever of Nuclear for peace.
Attached to the US-based Berkeley University,
Sooyoung Hu is a scholar at its Political Science and Peace and Conflict
Studies Department. Miss Hu focuses on international relations, international
organizations and its instruments.
is a Ottawa-based free-lance writer from Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Recently retired Senior lecturer on Development studies, he extensively
publishes in over 50 countries on 4 continents. He can be reached at
Robert Leonard Rope
He studied at the University of
He lives in: San Francisco, California: San Francisco, California, USA
Dr. Enis OMEROVIĆ
Max Hess is a senior political risk analyst
with the London-based AEK international, specializing in Europe and Eurasia.
Ananya Bordoloi is a Malaysia based researcher in the fields
of international relations, global governance and human rights. Author has
previously worked with Amnesty International in research and data collection
capacity, and for a publishing company as a pre-editor.
Robert J. Burrowes
has a lifetime commitment to understanding and
ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to
understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since
1981. He is the author of ‘Why
Violence?’ His email address is email@example.com and
his website is here.
Amel Ouchenane is
a member of the organization of Security and Strategic studies in Algeria. She
is also Research Assistant at the Idrak Research Center for Studies and
Ms. Ouchenane was researcher at Algiers University from 2011 to 2018.
(Department of International relations and African studies).
Dr. Nafees Ahmad
Ph. D., LL.M, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University
(SAARC)-New Delhi, Nafees Ahmad is an Indian national who holds a Doctorate
(Ph.D.) in International Refugee Law and Human Rights. Author teaches and writes
on International Forced Migrations, Climate Change Refugees & Human Displacement
Refugee, Policy, Asylum, Durable Solutions and Extradition issues.
Dutch - Nederlands
French - Français
German - Deutsch