When Cattleya Talked (12)

"In the land where shadows dance and stories come to life, there lived Kunti, an elder, and a young girl, Srikandi. One sunny afternoon, as the golden rays filtered through the ancient trees, Kunti and Srikandi sat by the riverbank, their reflections shimmering in the water.

'Bunda,' began Srikandi, 'why is it that trust is so important, yet so fragile?'

Kunti thought for a moment and said. 'Ah, my pretty girl, trust is like this river. It flows smoothly when nurtured but can become turbulent when disturbed.'

Srikandi, always eager for a story, leaned in closer. 'Tell me more, Bunda.'

Kunti smiled and began her tale. 'Once upon a time, in a village not far from here, there were two friends, Trust and Distrust. Trust was beloved by all, for she brought harmony and joy wherever she went. People would share their secrets with her, knowing she would keep them safe.'

'But Distrust,' Kunti continued, 'was a different story. She was always lurking in the shadows, whispering doubts into people’s ears. ‘Can you trust your neighbour?’ she would say. ‘What if they betray you?’

Srikandi chuckled. 'Distrust sounds like a troublemaker!'

'Indeed,' Kunti nodded. 'One day, Distrust decided to play a trick on the villagers. She persuaded the village chief stole everyone’s crops. Then panic ensued, and the villagers began to hide their harvests and lock their doors.”

'And what happened then?' Srikandi asked, eyes wide with anticipation.

'The village fell into discontent,' Kunti said with a sigh. 'Neighbors stopped talking to each other, friends became foes, and the once vibrant community turned into a place of suspicion and fear. Distrust had sown the seeds of discontent, and the harvest was bitter.'

Srikandi shook her head. 'That’s terrible! How did they fix it?'

'Ah,' Kunti’s eyes twinkled. 'It took a lot of effort. They finally learned that trust showed them that while distrust can bring discontent, trust can restore harmony.'

Srikandi smiled. 'I see now, Bunda. Trust is like the glue that holds us together, while distrust is the wedge that drives us apart.'

'Exactly, my young one,' Kunti said, patting Srikandi on the shoulder. 'Remember this lesson well, for in the dance of life, trust can bring you genuine effort and support and will always lead to a more beautiful performance.'"

"Now let's go on," said Cattleya. "External pressures can weaken a nation by creating stress, instability, and vulnerability in various aspects of the country's structure and functioning. External pressures refer to influences, actions, or forces originating from outside a nation that can negatively impact its stability, security, or overall strength. These pressures can come from other countries, international organizations, non-state actors, or global trends and can manifest in various forms, such as economic, political, military, cultural, or environmental challenges.

The goal of these external pressures, whether intentional or not, is often to influence the nation's policies, behaviour, or structure in a way that aligns with the interests of external actors, or to destabilize the nation for strategic advantage. External pressures can exploit existing vulnerabilities within a country, exacerbate internal conflicts, or create new challenges that the nation may struggle to manage effectively. External pressures are often part of broader geopolitical strategies where nations or groups seek to advance their interests by influencing or destabilizing other countries.

When other countries impose economic sanctions or trade restrictions, it can lead to financial strain, reduced access to essential goods, and economic downturns. This can weaken a nation's economy, leading to unemployment, inflation, and social unrest. Economic sanctions are punitive measures imposed by one or more countries to pressure a nation into changing a particular behaviour or policy. These can include trade embargoes, freezing of assets, and restrictions on financial transactions. Sanctions can lead to a severe economic downturn by limiting a nation's ability to export goods, access foreign capital, and participate in international financial systems. This can cause inflation, currency devaluation, and a decline in living standards. As economic conditions worsen, unemployment may rise, and the public may experience shortages of essential goods, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. This can fuel protests, strikes, and other forms of social unrest. Prolonged sanctions can lead to the deterioration of industries, reduced foreign investment, and a brain drain as skilled workers seek opportunities elsewhere. Over time, this can diminish a nation's economic resilience and global competitiveness.

Iran has faced economic sanctions from the United States and other countries over its nuclear program. These sanctions have severely impacted Iran's economy, leading to a sharp decline in oil exports, inflation, and a devaluation of the Iranian rial. The resulting economic hardship has fueled social unrest and protests, weakening the government's authority and stability.

Diplomatic isolation or strained relations with other nations can reduce a country's influence on the global stage, limit its access to international support, and hinder its ability to negotiate favourable terms in international agreements. This can leave the nation vulnerable to external threats. Diplomatic isolation occurs when a country is marginalized or excluded from international organizations, alliances, or diplomatic relations. When a nation is diplomatically isolated, it loses its ability to shape international policies and protect its interests on the global stage. This can lead to unfavourable outcomes in international negotiations, such as trade deals, security arrangements, or environmental agreements. Diplomatic isolation reduces a country's access to international aid, support, and cooperation. In times of crisis, such as natural disasters or armed conflict, the lack of international support can exacerbate the situation and hinder recovery efforts. Isolated nations may struggle to form alliances or coalitions to defend against external threats. This can make them more vulnerable to aggression or interference by other powers.

North Korea is one of the most diplomatically isolated countries in the world due to its nuclear weapons program and human rights abuses. This isolation has limited its ability to engage in international trade, receive foreign aid, or participate in global institutions. The lack of diplomatic ties and economic partnerships has left North Korea dependent on a few allies, like China, and has contributed to the country's economic stagnation and political vulnerability.

External military threats, whether in the form of direct aggression or proxy conflicts, can drain a nation's resources, destabilize its borders, and lead to loss of life and infrastructure. Prolonged conflicts can weaken national unity and undermine the government's ability to maintain control. Military threats, whether direct or indirect, can have profound effects on a nation's stability and security. Preparing for or engaging in military conflicts requires significant financial and human resources. Prolonged conflicts can drain the national treasury, disrupt economic activities, and result in the loss of lives and infrastructure. Conflicts, especially those involving foreign powers or proxy wars, can destabilize regions, displace populations, and create power vacuums. This can lead to ongoing instability, as rival factions or foreign powers vie for control. Military conflicts can also strain national unity, particularly if they are unpopular or if there are divisions within the population over the legitimacy of the war. Internal dissent can weaken the government's ability to maintain control and respond effectively to the conflict.

Ukraine has faced significant military threats since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The war has led to the loss of territory, displacement of millions of people, and significant economic costs. The conflict has strained Ukraine's resources, destabilized its political environment, and weakened national unity, making it more difficult for the government to implement reforms and rebuild the economy.

Robert A. Pape presents his concept of military coercion which he defines as efforts to change the behavior of a state by manipulating costs and benefits through concrete or potential means of force. This definition emphasises that coercion involves altering an adversary's posture by manipulating costs and benefits, which can include the threat of violence. The demarcation of his object within the universe of coercion occurs through the addition of a means of action—violence. Military coercion thus consists of efforts to alter an adversary's posture by employing concrete or potential means of force. Military coercion does not take place in a vacuum but within the political context of a conflict of wills. Pape restricts his study to cases where the target is asked to give up important interests.

Pape presents military coercion as a distinct entity within the phenomenon of war, separate from the act of war. A successful act of military coercion is one capable of extracting a desired concession from an adversary who possesses the means to resist. The potential for threatened violence that produces concrete results is considered the purest form of coercion. This approach emphasizes that coercion can occur without an actual 'act of violence,' but with violence held in reserve and used as a threat.

A successful act of military coercion extracts a desired concession from an adversary, even if they have the means to resist. In contrast, traditional military strategies often aim for outright victory or complete defeat. Pape advocates for a denial strategy, which involves targeting an adversary's military strategy to prevent them from achieving their objectives. This approach is more effective than punishment strategies, which target civilians or leaders and often backfire by increasing the adversary's resolve.

Pape critiques the conventional wisdom on strategic bombing, suggesting that it often backfires by increasing the resilience and loyalty of the civilian population. He argues that strategic bombing rarely leads to decisive results and that its effectiveness is often measured by the timing of an adversary's capitulation. Pape advocates for integrating air and land power in a 'hammer and anvil' fashion. He believes that synchronized air, land, and sea campaigns are more likely to lead to decisive victories than relying solely on air power. Pape rejects decapitation and punishment strategies as ineffective. Decapitation involves targeting key leadership, which he argues is often unsuccessful, while punishment involves imposing costs on the civilian population, which he considers immoral and ineffective.

Pape discusses various theories of air power, including denial (interdiction to weaken enemy forces), risk (gradually increasing the effects of bombing), punishment (inflicting pain on civilians), and decapitation (strikes against key leadership). Pape's work helps policymakers understand the limitations and potential of air power in achieving strategic objectives. It also challenges common misconceptions about the effectiveness of strategic bombing and highlights the importance of considering the broader strategic context in which air power is employed.

Mohamed ElBaradei delves into the complexities of nuclear proliferation, focusing on countries like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. ElBaradei discusses the challenges of monitoring and controlling nuclear programs, as well as the efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. He emphasizes that national security is tied to individual security. He argues that disarmament is crucial but also highlights the need for a universal commitment to human dignity, democratic values, and freedom from want. He critiques double standards in international relations, particularly in how different countries are treated regarding their nuclear programs. ElBaradei argues for a more equitable and consistent approach to global security.

ElBaradei argues that nuclear weapons should be delegitimized. This involves developing alternative systems of security that do not rely on nuclear deterrence. He also emphasizes the need to provide inclusive security measures where countries do not feel threatened and thus do not need to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. He underscores that the security of nations is tied to the security of individuals. He advocates for a universal commitment to human dignity, democratic values, and freedom from want. This approach is crucial for reducing the drivers of nuclear proliferation, such as instability, insecurity, and economic and social disparities.

The use of nuclear weapons would cause immense and long-lasting harm, including widespread destruction, radiation poisoning, and potentially catastrophic effects on the environment and human health. Most research agrees that detonating an atomic weapon is inherently immoral due to these catastrophic effects. Nuclear deterrence involves putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk, which is morally problematic. The threat of nuclear retaliation can lead to a situation where civilians are caught in the crossfire, making deterrence morally unacceptable.

The use of nuclear technology raises questions about public acceptance and responsibility. It is argued that technological processes should be subject to constant public scrutiny and discussion to ensure they serve human values and not override them. The ethical alternative to nuclear deterrence is often seen as bilateral disarmament, where both nations agree to retreat from nuclear arms. This approach aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war and promote international cooperation.

Cynthia C. Kelly presents a compilation of insights and historical accounts related to J. Robert Oppenheimer's role in the Manhattan Project. J. Robert Oppenheimer made several crucial contributions to the Manhattan Project, which was a pivotal effort during World War II aimed at developing the first atomic bomb. He was appointed as the scientific director of the Manhattan Project in 1942. Oppenheimer assembled an exceptional team of scientists, including Enrico Fermi and Richard Feynman, to work collaboratively on the project. The culmination of their efforts was the successful Trinity nuclear test in July 1945, which marked the first detonation of an atomic bomb. He chose the plateau of Los Alamos, near Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the site for the laboratory where the project was conducted. The creation of the atomic bomb, under Oppenheimer’s leadership, transformed the global geopolitical landscape. It ended World War II but also marked the beginning of the Cold War, redefining international relations and establishing a climate of deterrence.

After the war, Oppenheimer became a vocal advocate for international nuclear arms control. His advocacy was part of the post-war debates about the use and regulation of nuclear technology, though it was also marred by controversies and accusations of disloyalty. Oppenheimer felt a deep sense of guilt about the creation of the atomic bomb. He often referred to the legend of Prometheus, reflecting his recognition of the evil and the long knowledge of it that came with humanity's new powers. This guilt was not just about the use of the bomb during World War II but also about the ensuing arms race and the threat to civilization that it brought about. He vehemently opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb, which he believed was more destructive than mankind could responsibly control. This opposition put him in direct conflict with his Manhattan Project colleague Edward Teller, who was a strong proponent of the H-bomb. He personal moral code was complex and not dictated by a single religion or culture. He sought absolution for his past guilt through various religious texts, including Hinduism, and was deeply conflicted about the impact of his work. This inner moral conflict persisted until his death, as he grappled with the question of whether the bomb would bring life through nuclear power or destruction. These conflicts highlight the ethical and political dilemmas that Oppenheimer faced, both during and after his involvement in the Manhattan Project. His personal beliefs about democracy, ethics, and the responsible use of scientific knowledge often clashed with the realities of the time, leading to significant personal and professional challenges.

Robert D. Blackwill and Jennifer M. Harris highlight the strategic integration of economic tools into foreign policy, emphasizing the importance of leveraging economic power to achieve geopolitical objectives. Blackwill and Harris describe that the use of economic instruments includes a variety of tools such as trade policy, investment policy, economic and financial sanctions, cyber, financial, and monetary policy, and energy and commodities as 'geoeconomics.' They define 'geoeconomics' as the use of economic instruments to promote and defend national interests and to produce beneficial geopolitical results. This definition encompasses the effects of other nations' economic actions on a country's geopolitical goals as well. Geoeconomics aims to advance a nation's strategic objectives through economic means, rather than solely relying on military force. The ultimate goal is to achieve geopolitical outcomes that benefit the nation using these economic instruments.

Blackwill and Harris argue that the United States has historically relied too heavily on military force rather than economic tools to advance its interests abroad. This neglect has led to a disadvantage for the U.S. in geopolitical competitions, particularly against rising powers like China and Russia. They recommend using the U.S. position as an 'energy superpower' to help allies and secure key trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to counterbalance Chinese and Russian geoeconomic policies. They contend that if U.S. policies remain unchanged, the country will increasingly rely on military force to protect its interests, which could come at a high cost in blood and treasure.

Blackwill and Harris highlight the increasing use of economic instruments in foreign policy, which is a dominant trend in modern geopolitics. Nations are leveraging economic tools to achieve geopolitical goals, including trade policies, sanctions, and energy manipulation, as seen in the actions of China and Russia. They emphasize the need for the U.S. to adapt its foreign policy to include more vigorous use of economic and financial instruments. This is crucial as other nations, especially illiberal states, are employing geoeconomic strategies to their advantage.

By not leveraging economic instruments, the U.S. risks losing ground as a world power. Rising nations like China and Russia are increasingly using geoeconomic means to undermine American influence and advance their interests. The U.S. might be forced to rely more heavily on military force to protect its interests, which could come at a high cost in blood and treasure. This overreliance could lead to a higher risk of military conflicts and greater financial burdens. Without a robust geoeconomic strategy, the U.S. becomes more vulnerable to economic coercion from other nations. This could include trade restrictions, sanctions, and other economic measures that could significantly impact the U.S. economy.

By not integrating economic instruments into its foreign policy, the U.S. misses opportunities to achieve strategic objectives through economic means. This could lead to missed diplomatic and economic opportunities that could have been leveraged to advance U.S. interests. The global geoeconomic playing field is tilting against the U.S. due to the increasing use of economic instruments by other nations. This shift could result in the U.S. being at a disadvantage in international economic and security competitions. The U.S. may struggle to effectively counter the geoeconomic strategies employed by rising powers like China and Russia. This could lead to a decline in U.S. influence and power relative to these nations. Neglecting geoeconomics for the U.S. can lead to a loss of global influence, increased military dependence, economic vulnerability, missed strategic opportunities, a tilting geoeconomic playing field, inadequate response to rising powers, and negative economic consequences.

Blackwill and Harris emphasize the importance of leveraging economic instruments to influence adversaries and achieve strategic objectives. They argue that economic measures can be powerful instruments of influence, capable of shaping international outcomes without necessarily resorting to military force. However, they do not advocate for the complete abandonment of military force; rather, they suggest that policymakers should consider a more comprehensive approach that includes economic statecraft alongside traditional military tools.

The use of economic tools does not necessarily mean abandoning military force. Instead, it suggests a more nuanced approach that includes a broader range of instruments to achieve strategic objectives. Economic measures can be powerful tools for shaping international outcomes without necessarily resorting to military force.

David A. Baldwin highlights the importance of economic statecraft as a powerful tool in foreign policy, capable of influencing international relations in complex and multifaceted ways. Statecraft refers to the art and practice of conducting state affairs, encompassing various techniques and strategies used by governments to achieve their foreign policy goals. It involves the skilful use of power and influence to manage international relations, often integrating multiple disciplines such as economics, politics, psychology, philosophy, history, law, and sociology. Statecraft has been practised throughout history, with notable examples including ancient Athens' trade boycotts and modern-day sanctions.

David A. Baldwin differentiates economic statecraft from other forms of statecraft by defining it as 'governmental influence attempts relying primarily on resources that have a reasonable semblance of a market price in terms of money'. This broad definition encompasses various economic tools used to influence other international actors, including foreign aid, trade policies, and sanctions. Economic statecraft relies on resources that have a market price, such as money, trade, and capital flows. Baldwin defines economic statecraft as influence attempts, which means that the desired outcomes are not necessarily limited to economic terms but can include broader strategic and political impacts. He divides economic statecraft into two broad categories: negative sanctions (actual or threatened punishments) and positive sanctions (actual or promised rewards). Baldwin challenges the conventional view that economic tools of foreign policy do not work, arguing that their utility has been systematically underestimated due to inadequacies in analytical frameworks.

Baldwin argues that the utility of economic techniques of statecraft has been systematically underestimated. This is because traditional analytical frameworks have inadequacies that lead to incorrect estimates of their effectiveness. He defines economic statecraft broadly includes not only economic means but also broader influence attempts aimed at shaping the behaviour of other states. The desired results of economic statecraft are not necessarily limited to economic terms. Instead, they are conceptualized as 'influence attempts,' which means they try to influence the behaviour of other states in any way, economic or otherwise.

Economic statecraft is a means by which nations can exert influence over other states. By using economic tools such as foreign aid, trade policies, and sanctions, nations can shape the behaviour of other states and thereby influence their national power. Economic statecraft is often used in bargaining processes. Nations use economic means to negotiate with other states, which can lead to changes in national power dynamics. For example, offering foreign aid or imposing sanctions can be used to influence the behaviour of other states. Foreign trade and foreign aid are significant tools in economic statecraft. These tools can be used to strengthen or weaken a nation's position in international relations, thereby affecting its national power.

Baldwin also discusses the morality and legality of economic statecraft. He argues that while economic sanctions and rewards can have significant impacts on national power, they must be used ethically and legally to avoid unintended consequences. The legality of unilateral economic sanctions is a subject of much debate and differing opinions within the field of international law. Economic sanctions can have significant humanitarian costs, including malnutrition, lack of emergency medical care, and deprivation of necessities for survival. They can also lead to greater harm for vulnerable populations such as infants, the elderly, and the sick. Despite their inefficacy in changing behaviour, economic sanctions serve a symbolic function. They signal what is and is not acceptable ethical behaviour, helping to construct new norms of belief and behaviour over time. This symbolic function is crucial for ethical acts and symbols in shaping normative practices.

The use of economic sanctions raises ethical dilemmas due to the potential for significant civilian harm. Measures taken to minimize civilian harm are often inconsistent with the nature of economic sanctions, which inherently involve economic damage that can be devastating to the civilian population. The morality of economic statecraft intersects with its legality. While some argue that states have inherent economic freedom to alter their relations, including imposing sanctions, others contend that coercive measures are unlawful. The morality of sanctions is often debated in terms of their impact on innocent civilians and the predictability of outcomes.

We continue to discuss external pressures, which encompass cultural and ideological influence, cyber attacks, information warfare, economic dependency, and environmental pressures. Biidhinillah."

Afterwards, Cattleya sang Sting's Russian,

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy?

There is no monopoly on common sense

On either side of the political fence

We share the same biology, regardless of ideology

Citations & References:

- Robert D. Blackwill and Jennifer M. Harris, War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft, 2016, Belknap Press

- Robert A. Pape, Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, 1996, Cornell University Press

- Mohamed ElBaradei, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, 2011, Bloomsbury Publishing

- Cynthia C. Kelly (Ed.), Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project, 2006, World Scientific Publishing

- David A. Baldwin, Economic Statecraft, 2020, Princeton University Press

[Session 13]

[Session 11]

Bahasa