Entries by iis.fisipol

RCEP: Peril or Impetus for a Greater ASEAN Regionalism?

/in , /by

Against the backdrop of global pandemic, ASEAN successfully held its 37th summit from 12-15 November 2020. During the four days course of the conference, ASEAN members mainly discussed multilateral cooperation to recover from pandemic and the tension that was escalating in the region, notably in the South China Sea months prior to the conference. In the midst of rising tension, ASEAN reaches a historic milestone with the signing of Regional Comprehensive Partnership Agreement/RCEP. The trade agreement unites ten ASEAN member states, China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia under the same flagship—countries that previously cooperated under ASEAN +6 excluding India.

The trade pact that comprises of 15 countries across Asia-Pacific and covers almost a third of the world population is regarded as the world’s biggest trade agreement, next after the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement and European Union. Other than the sheer number of the countries participating in this agreement, the mega-regional agreement also demonstrates the feats of bridging three East Asian countries—China, Japan, and South Korea that are traditionally reluctant to engage under the same economic framework—with its counterparts in Western Pacific. The agreement is expected to progressively cut down the already low tariff among member countries and incentivize investment flow when it finally comes into effect (Lee, 2020). Vietnam, a country that has been profoundly affected by rivalry between the United States and China in the region, is optimistic about the cooperation.

Final negotiation of RCEP coincides with two important momenta that highly affect the region: economic recession prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing power transition in the United States after the presidential election. Despite its feat on uniting Asia-Pacific under the same trading platform, many actors view RCEP in a skeptical way, including India that was originally involved in the deal’s formulation but withdrew during the negotiation last year. India’s approach also reflects the growing animosity towards China, especially after the border clash in Himalaya early in May. Some commentators view that RCEP signals a growing Chinese dominance over Asia-Pacific, including ASEAN that has long become a battle ground between great powers. Reuter and Wall Street Journal, for instance, labelled the RCEP as the ‘China-backed trade deal’ that will eventually pose a threat to ASEAN and other Asia-Pacific countries (Pearson, 2020; Emont & Gale, 2020).

Reflection of China’s Growing Influence?

The making of RCEP has undergone a lengthy debate for eight years since it was first introduced in 2012. Prior to RCEP, several ASEAN member states and Asia-Pacific countries have been cooperating under several trade agreements; one is the Trans-Pacific Partnership/TPP that was led by the US in 2016. TPP was the emanation of Barack Obama’s strategic pivot to Asia. TPP originally became the biggest trade deal in the region by covering almost 40% of the world’s economy and—as the name suggests—bridging countries across the Pacific Ocean, from Brazil, Chile, Mexico, to Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia (Gong, 2020, p. 40).  However, under the presidency of Donald Trump, the US withdrew from the agreement, arguing that the deal will ultimately lead to decline of US manufacture and lower wages for domestic workers. As a consequence, US withdrawal left the vacuum in the Asia-Pacific that was later seized by its rival (Gong, 2020, p. 45). In later remarks, China hailed RCEP as a win for its side. “The signing of the RCEP is not only a monumental achievement in East Asian regional cooperation, but more important, a victory of multilateralism and free trade,” said China Premier Li Keqiang.

Compared to TPP and its evolution, Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), RCEP is less rigorous. It puts a lower standard on policy harmonization. RCEP also doesn’t mention certain standards over labor rights or environmental protections that were covered in CPTPP. Different standards, however, are understandable since RCEP tries to bridge diverse economies, starting from the highly developed countries like Japan and Australia to developing economies like Cambodia and Laos in Southeast Asia. Moreover, the huge economic gap between countries in RCEP make some commentators believe that it will give harm to some countries in ASEAN. Big margin in economic capability will make the developed industries like China and Japan reap the most from this agreement and consequently make the economic gap within ASEAN countries exacerbated. “Who, actually, are gaining benefit from this project” is the focal point over the current debate. The RCEP and trans-Pacific Deal “together will offset global losses from the U.S.-China trade war, although not for China and the United States,” stated Petri & Plummer (2020).

Previously, China already had a number of bilateral trade agreements with members of RCEP, including ASEAN countries. However, RCEP marks a historic moment when, for the first time, the world’s second largest economy signed up in a regional multilateral trade pact. It’s without mentioning China’s geopolitics opponent—Japan, South Korea, and Australia—also included in this agreement. Despite its less rigorous standard, the sheer size of RCEP is showing its significance over Asia-Pacific political constellation. Rather than economic cooperation in itself, RCEP symbolizes a bigger geopolitics and diplomatic triumph over the region. Kishore Mahbubani, former Singapore minister of foreign affairs also pointed out during one of the Global Town Hall (GTH) panels, “RCEP is the sign of China’s victory.” Being excluded in the process, RCEP delivers a strong message to the United States that Southeast Asia and other Asian countries are growing more solid on defining their own relations. As former U.S. Trade Representative Wendy Cutler noted in his commentary,

 “RCEP is another reminder that our Asian trading partners have developed a confidence about working together without the United States (Cutler, 2020).”

Ushering the ASEAN Centrality

ASEAN countries have long been polarized when it comes to defining their approach towards China. While China is currently the biggest trading partner in the region, each country shows various degrees of cooperation or hostility toward the country. Laos, Cambodia, and other Mekong Basin countries are highly dependent, whereas countries like Malaysia, the Philippines, and including Indonesia are facing opposition both from domestic forces and policy makers. RCEP demonstrates that ASEAN countries can reach the consensus on formulating economic partnership with a partner that traditionally cooperates by using bilateral channels, including with Australia, New Zealand, and other East Asian countries that are linked under ASEAN+6 platform. RCEP can further push ASEAN regionalism, primarily on how it develops the existing ties with the additional ASEAN+6 economic cooperation.

Moreover, the signing of RCEP also asserts ASEAN’s position on defining countries relations in Asia-Pacific. Contrary to the previously mentioned opinion, some analysts argue that RCEP is a win for ASEAN’s middle power diplomacy. Given the diverse members of the mega-trade pact, neither China nor Japan as a traditional trade leader will become the architect of this agreement when it finally comes into effect. Rivalry between great powers that also pose a danger in the security aspect of the region will necessitate a different approach to bring RCEP further. Speaking in GWT, Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, also stated that through RCEP, “China firmly supports the ASEAN centrality.”  ASEAN’s neutrality—emanated in last year’s ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific—in this context, will ultimately take a greater role in shaping RCEP when it comes into effect. Thus, the label “China-led agreement” is inaccurate. It was previously shown in 2012 when a stalemate over negotiation was resolved by ASEAN. Instead of being led by China, as many commentators suggest, RCEP exhibits a triumph for ASEAN. As Petri and Plummer (2020b) pointed out in Brookings,

“Without such ‘ASEAN centrality,’ RCEP might never have been launched.”  

Apart from recovering from the post-pandemic economic downturn, RCEP also expected to offset the harms caused by the years-long trade war between the United States and China. Especially for ASEAN countries that have long been affected by the rivalry, including Vietnam that hosted the ASEAN summit this year. In short, despite its less rigorous standards, RCEP can further incentivize the global value chain within the region. ASEAN, in particular, is projected to gain $19 billion annually by 2030 through this agreement (Petri & Plummer, 2020a)

Due to its volume and modesty compared to the previous trade pact, RCEP will take years before it finally comes into effect. It can also face a challenge upon the ratification in each member country, especially in the country with growing anti-China or anti-international sentiment. Malaysia, for instance, cancelled two of Belt and Road Initiatives projects after Mahathir Muhammad won the election on 2018. Regardless of its impact, RCEP will ultimately cement the position of ASEAN in a greater Asia-Pacific dynamic. The overall process and finalization of this agreement signify the message that ASEAN cannot be seen narrowly as the battle ground between the so-called ‘two great powers.’ Instead, RCEP denotes ASEAN’s rising primacy in defining their own region.

 

REFERENCES

Brookings. (2020, November 16). RCEP: A new trade agreement that will shape global economics and politics. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/11/16/rcep-a-new-trade-agreement-that-will-shape-global-economics-and-politics/

Cutler, W. (2020, November 15). RCEP Agreement: Another Wake-up Call for the United States on Trade. https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/rcep-agreement-another-wake-call-united-states-trade

Emont, J., & Gale, A. (2020, November 13). Asia-Pacific Countries Push to Sign China-Backed Trade Megadeal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/asia-pacific-countries-push-to-sign-china-backed-megadeal-11605265208

Gong, X. (2020). China’s Economic Statecraft. Security Challenges, 16(3), pp. 39-46.

Lee, Y. N. (2020, November 15). ‘A coup for China’: Analysts react to the world’s largest trade deal that excludes the U.S. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/rcep-15-asia-pacific-countries-including-china-sign-worlds-largest-trade-deal.html

Pearson, J. (2020, November 11). Asian leaders to sign China-backed trade deal amid U.S. election uncertainty. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asean-summit/asian-leaders-to-sign-china-backed-trade-deal-amid-u-s-election-uncertainty-idUSKBN27R0QJ

Petri, A. P., & Plummer, M. G. (2020, June). East Asia decouples from the United States: Trade war, COVID-19, and East Asia’s new trade blocs. https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/east-asia-decouples-united-states-trade-war-covid-19-and-east-asias-new

Writer : Arrizal A. Jaknanihan

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti

The Diminishing Reputability of Police in the United States, Explained.

/in , /by

A body invented to protect the masses has become an enemy to the very people whom they serve. The relationship between the US police and its citizens is a complicated matter which in recent years has become more prevalent in international discussions. Reoccurring instances of unnecessary contact and misuse of power from law enforcement have caught the attention of the US citizens and all those watching on around the world. A lack of accountability has created general mistrust, and it is clear that if reform does not occur to resolve the systemic issues that have arisen within the core of the police, the interrelation of law enforcement and the people of the United States will deteriorate further, and rapidly.

The unconventional dynamic between the citizens of the United States and its police force can be dated back to the establishment of police in America, and the responsibilities policemen were given at the time. Fundamentally, policing in Colonial America was established to keep communities in order. As society progressed, police duties grew. Eventually, as evident in modern day, police have been empowered to protect their own power and privilege most commonly in situations that allow them to exert social control over minority groups. A large aspect of tension between the police force and US citizens is the indisputable documentation of racially targeting people of colour. Slave patrols, during the colonial era, were forms of police who were responsible for punishing slaves who tried to free themselves (Romero 2020). Historically, police have had duties that inexplicitly target certain groups and have been authorised to use force with those who are not equal to them – including people of colour, low-income communities and minority groups. These factors are able to give context for the current behaviour of police officers in the United States today.

A very significant period of time that heightened tension between police and the people of the US was the aggressive response from police during the Black Lives Matter protests. After the death of George Floyd, a peaceful, wrongly accused man of colour who was pinned beneath police officers so forcefully he was unable to continue breathing, the world united to protest against police brutality specifically towards people of colour. Internationally, it was recognised that police in the United States are ignorant to the concept of equality. Research from Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project found that 93 per cent of the 7,750 Black Lives Matter protests were peaceful. However, images of violent protests were what made media headlines, with the then-president Donald Trump referring to the protesters as “thugs” (Cineas 2021). Over 427 arrests were made at the peak of the protests, despite the high number of protests being conducted in peace.

In comparison, law enforcement failed to keep white-supremacist rioters at Capitol Hill under control, through blatant complicity.  The lack of both physical presence and hostility at the Capitol riot that was so clearly present at the Black Lives Matter protests has reinforced anger within the American people. Such rioters smashed windows and scaled walls, however only 69 people were arrested (North 2021). Videos taken during the riot display officers “holding hands of extremists, escorting them down steps, holding the doors of the Capitol open for them and taking selfies with them” (Cineas 2021). The clear contrast of events and reactions from the police can be seen as a combination of ignorance and racial bias. It is evident that although police were aware of the extent of the event due to it being posted on social media, they chose to support the notion of white entitlement and as a result encouraged dangerous extremists to express their opinions in the most violent way possible without serious consequence.

The path forward is complex. However, in order to mend the relationship between law enforcement and the citizens reforms must be introduced (Jabali, 2020). Firstly, systemic issues within police training and recruitment must be addressed. Police should be reminded what their role in society is, and how violent riots should prompt a different reaction to non-violent protests. Implicit-bias training should be mandated in police academy, to attempt eradicating the clear racial prejudice towards minority groups. Although it is not simple to convince everyone to think the same way, if the police force project and openly support this view then the future generation of law enforcement will carry on this important, egalitarianist mindset.

REFERENCES:

Cineas, F (2021), Whiteness is at the core of the insurrection. Retrieved 13 January, from https://www.vox.com/2021/1/8/22221078/us-capitol-trump-riot-insurrection

Romero, D (2020), Reimaging the role of Police. Retrieved 13 January, from https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/reimagining-the-role-of-police/

North, A (2021), Police Bias explains the Capitol Riot. Retrieved 13 January, from https://www.vox.com/22224765/capitol-riot-dc-police-officers

Jabali, M (2020), If you’re surprised by how the police are acting, you don’t understand US history. Retrieved 13 January, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/police-us-history-reform-violence-oppression

Writer : Emily Camilleri

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti

The Capitol Riot: a New Normal for US Democracy?

/in , /by

The political situation in the United States has earned another spotlight after a mass riot that occurred in the capital city of Washington DC. Thousands of people stormed the Capitol Building of the United States, which was the venue for the US Congress meeting, which would certify Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election. In that incident, supporters of Donald Trump tried to stop the meeting, triggering clashes with authorities. It was reported that the mob succeeded occupying the Capitol Building, causing the congress meeting to be declared a recess and its members were evacuated (Koob, 2021). There were about five casualties and 50 people were arrested (Ortiz, Bacon, Yancey- Bragg and Culver, 2021). After the incident, Mayor of Washington DC, Muriel Bowser declared a state of emergency for 15 days with the possibility of extending the status if things were not deemed to be improving.

What happened was certainly a surprise to people of the United States and the international community. The United States, which has been regarded as a pilot in implementing democracy, had illustrated what should not be carried out in a democratic process. This criticism certainly come with reasons. For world leaders, this is certainly an alarm that the US was shaken by this event. The attack on democracy in the US could also mean an attack on democracy all around the world. If this kind of riot could happen in an established democratic country like the US, this could also happen in other parts of the world. (Bennhold & Myers, 2021). From this incident, a big question arises, will this kind of condition become a new normal for the implementation of democracy in the US?

Trump Political Communication Strategy and the Cause of the Riots

To understand the context of the political turmoil that occurred, we can track the history back to the 2016 elections when Donald Trump ran for president of the United States. In his campaign, Donald Trump relied on his Post-Truth style of communication to garner sympathy from his supporters. With the help of right-wing media and social media that personally launched their versions of truth narratives. The concept of post truth itself is not new to the world of politics. Oxford Dictionaries explains that Post-Truth is a state in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.  Moreover, from recent studies of scholars it is concluded that the post-truth world emerged as a result of societal mega-trends such as: a decline in social capital, growing economic inequality, increased polarization, declining trust in science, and an increasingly fractionated media landscape (Lewandowsky, Elker, and Cook, 2017). Trump polarized the masses and divides the public through the information channels he has, both social media and right-wing mass media, which had so far fully supported the formation of good public opinion on  Trump.

Trump played this post-truth concept actively not only during his campaign period in 2016 , but also during his tenure as president. Over the past four years, Trump had fed his supporters with the narratives they want to hear, even though the truth of these narratives had been either questioned or proven wrong. Data from the Washington Post states that during his presidency, Trump issued an average of fifty false narratives every day (Kesser, Rizo, and Kelly, 2020). Unfortunately, the concept of post-truth political communication was still being implemented until the 2020 election when Trump was defeated in a political contest against Biden. On this occasion, Trump narrated that there was fraud that made him lost his vote in the election process while at the same time refusing to recognize Biden’s victory. For the past two months Trump had misinformed his supporters that his defeat was unfair.

The group of Trump supporters that felt the result was unfair carried out a riot in the Capitol as an expression of their dissatisfaction with the legal system they consider unfair. Armed with their embraced beliefs, they believed their values should apply in that country. According to Paige in his article titled Political Orientation and Riot Participation (2017), riot actors are mostly found in community groups with high level of information on political issues, but have low trust on government or authority. This explanation illustrates what happened in the riot. A group of people who feel they have a lot of information about political realities (even though those were questionable informations) showed dissatisfaction towards the government and feelt more competent to carry out political process than the authority.

A New Normal for US Democracy?

The biggest question is whether this kind of incident will become the new normal for political process in the US? Riots themselves are not something new in the US. Since the beginning of US history, riots and violent political actions have been rhetorically symbolize acts of patriotism that support freedom and independence (Jackson, 2020). This also applies to riots related to general elections. Riots have happened a lot, especially before the second world war. However, this is the first time an unrest has occurred at the national level, especially with regard to issues with presidential elections, which is a symbol of democratic supremacy in the US.

Trump as the most responsible figure for this riot may not last much longer. Currently, Trump no longer has the institutional backing or legitimacy supporting him. Even his own party has now turned to condemn him after the riot in Washington DC. Republican figures such as Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina criticized Trump’s campaign promoting a conspiracy theory that sparked unrest. Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton also urged Trump to immediately admit defeat and stop spreading fake news (Dennis and Dillard, 2021). Therefore, Trump’s existence as an individual is no longer a cause for concern in the future.

Something noteworthy is the legitimacy of the socio-political conditions left by Trump. America is now divided into several political spectrum. The society is polarized based on their values and beliefs. It is dangerous that a lot of people prefer to cling to the truth they want to believe instead of the facts. As long as these differences have not been harmonized, and the community continues to cling to their respective beliefs by ignoring facts and common sense, it is not impossible that they will continue to raise their voices in various ways including riots. Moreover, if later authority failed to give deterrence, people who perpetrated the riot would repeat their actions in the future. On the other hand, those who oppose this incident would lose their trust in the government if they considered them to have failed enforcing the law and create security stability for the citizens. The public is also responsible to prevent figures like Trump, who carry out the post-truth concept and have a “go big or go home” mentality, from being given the stage to carry out their actions. Society should learn a lesson that such person is a threat for democracy

 The US’ condition as it is today will be a big homework for President-elect Joe Biden, who will carry out the mandate for the next four years. Biden must be able to become president for every community. The elected president must be able to embrace people trapped in the post-truth illusion created by Trump. Activities that tend to alienate Trump supporters as well as people with different political views will backfire on Biden and his administration as the group will have stronger legitimacy to launch future unrest under the pretext of political discrimination from the government in power. For this reason, Biden must convince everyone that the essence of democracy must be carried out in peace and  dignity for all the people of the US. If this process is successful, the attack on the Capitol will only end up as a special case in the history of US democracy. On the other hand, if Biden fails to embrace and improve the condition, it is not impossible that this kind of protest will become a new normal in US democracy.

 

References

Bennhold, K., & Myers, S. (2021). America’s Friends and Foes Express Horror as Capitol Attack ‘Shakes the World’. Retrieved 8 January 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/world/europe/trump-capitol-2020-election-mob.html

Dennis, S., & Dillard, J. (2021). Republicans Recoil From Trump as Violence Proves Too Much. Retrieved 8 January 2021, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-07/capitol-violence-marks-opening-for-gop-to-distance-from-trump

Jackson, K. (2020). The Double Standard of the American Riot. Retrieved 8 January 2021, from https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/riots-are-american-way-george-floyd-protests/612466/

Kessler, G., Rizzo, S., & Kelly, M. (2020). Trump is averaging more than 50 false or misleading claims a day. Retrieved 8 January 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/22/president-trump-is-averaging-more-than-50-false-or-misleading-claims-day/

Koob, S. (2021). What we know so far about the storming of the US Capitol. Retrieved 8 January 2021, from https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-protests-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-storming-of-the-capitol-20210107-p56sa1.html

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Journal Of Applied Research In Memory And Cognition, 6(4), 353-369. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008

Ortiz, Bacon, Yancey- Bragg, & Culver. (2021). DC riots live updates: Capitol Police officer dies from injuries; FBI offers $50K reward for pipe bomb suspect info. Retrieved 8 January 2021, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/07/washington-dc-capitol-trump-riots-day-after-live-updates/6577841002/

Paige, J. (1971). Political Orientation and Riot Participation. American Sociological Review, 36(5), 810. doi: 10.2307/2093668

Writer : Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika

Editor : Angganararas Indriyosanti

[RECAP] Regional Colloquium on Middle East : The Arabaian and Israelian Peace: In Sought of a Trace, Instigating Advancement

/in , /by

On Monday (14/02), Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) conducted the second rendition of Regional Colloquium since its first edition in 2018. In this edition, Regional Colloquium adopted the Middle East as the discussion’s pivotal focus, under the theme “Post-Trump Middle East: Geopolitical Issues in the Middle East amidst the abdication of President Donald Trump”. With the focus in scrutinizing the implications of Joe Biden as the newly elected president of the United States towards the peace in the Middle East, and within this opportunity IIS UGM invited 4 speakers, During the first panel session, IIS UGM cordially invited Prof. Dr. Bambang Cipto (professor at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta), and Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro (lecturer at the Department of International Relations UGM), who discusses on the extrapolation of US’s foreign policy towards the Middle East during the presidential term of Joe Biden.

The first session was opened by Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika (Research staff for IISUGM) as the moderator, and commenced by Prof. Bambang Cipto that presented on “US’s interest in the Middle East”. Prof. Cipto remarks, that the primary interest of the United States in the Midlle East is to defend the existence and to secure Israel’s interest within the region, as Israel is of US’s paramount importance in extending US’s reach in the region. The significant influence of the Jewish lobby in the US, viz., the AIPAC asserts a safeguard measure that any elected president should defend and endorses the existence of Israel form any external threats in the Middle East. As the “Golden Child” of the US, Israel profits from the considerable amount of foreign aid directed by the United States, in which Israel utilizes to realize the superiority of its military might in the region. Notwitstanding, the US’s support to Israel can be reflected in the UN, wherein Israel invariably holds a potent position due to US’s support. As a closing remark, Prof. Cipto exclaimed that the US under Biden’s presidency are more presumptively to defend its sphere of influence in the Middle East via Israel, despite of the consideration to alter its previous US’s foreign policy.

“Principled but Pragmatic: The Prognosis of Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East” is the title of Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro’s presentation during the second session of the first panel. Dr. Rachmat scrutinize on the obstruction that needs to be considered by Biden in maneuvering its approach in the Middle East, that is stipulated by Biden as one of the most significant regions in one of his writings “Why America must lead again: Rescuing US Foreign Policy After Trump”. Biden scopes that the US is no longer a global leader, hence Biden aspires to revise US’s foreign policy as a means to reclaim US’s position as a global leader. Albeit, in considering the Middle East ,it is imperative for Biden to crystalize US’s arrangement in tackling the probable threats that may materials, videlicet: (1) US’s approach towards Iran, (2) determining US’s deportment towards Turkey, (3) devising and exercising a suitable policy towards the endorsement of a broader democratic and political participation in the region, (4) acting as a stronghold for “an equal” and peaceful agreement that stresses over the interest of Palestine, and (5) devising an “acceptable” resolution that is profusely ingrained in the Yemen Crises, the Syrian Civil War, and the instability in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the second panel, under the theme of geopolitics and contemporary peace in the Middle East, IIS invited Dr. Siti Mutiah Setiawati (lecturer at the Department of International Relations UGM), and Dr. Nur Munir, (Director of Islamic and Middle Eastern Research Center, Universitas Indonesia). Dr. Siti Mutiah initiated the session by delivering on the significance of geopolitics within the Palestinian grounds, which frequently becomes the root of instability and conflict in the region. According to the Arabian community, Palestinian grounds is considered to be a land that they have inhabited circa 60 AD, not to mention as the third holy land in Islam, which is the religion adopted by the majority of the Arabs. Conversely, Palestine holds an intrinsic significance for the Jewish community, as the Palestinian grounds is considered to be as “the promised land” by God for the Jews, ergo there is no compromisation for the land of Palestine. The contrast of values and beliefs between the two aforementioned communities fosters continuous conflict within the land of Palestine. Inasmuch, since 1973, the inception of a wave of diplomatic ties between the Arabic states and Israel starts to be institutionalized, which consequently disperses the notion of Pan-Arabism. This wave emerges in 1978 by Egypt, continued by Jordan in 1994, and recently by United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in 2020.

In the last session, Drs. Nur Munir delivered the last presentation on “Road Path Towards the Future of Jerusalem According to the view of the State of Israel: Academic search to Find a Proper Political Standing of the Republic of Indonesia to Contribute in making a Better World”. Drs. Nur Munir excerts Israel’s scope regarding the significance of Palestinian grounds, notably the city of Jerusalem as one of the guiding underpinnings of Israel’s policy. Drs. Nur Munir postulates, that in order to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East, it is imperative to have a comprehensive cognizance over the significance of Palestinian grounds towards the Jews and Israel, as there are some compatible and incompatible measures that goes in congruence to Arabic Islam’s interest. Ergo, the contemporary conflict in Palestine cannot be solely espied as an Arabic political issue, nevertheless as a political issue of the Islamic world as a whole. Drs. Nur Munir concludes that this form of contemplation is needed in Indonesia, due to its active commitment in supporting conflict resolution and the independence of Palestine, which is ingrained in paragraph 1 and 4 of Indonesia’s State Constitution and its free and active foreign policy.

Writer : Raditya Bomantara

Editor : Handono Ega P.

[RECAP] Regional Colloquium on Middle East : Perdamaian Negara-Negara Arab dengan Israel : Menilik Jejak, Merintis Langkah

/in /by

Pada hari Senin, 14 Desember 2020, Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada menyelenggarakan edisi kedua dari Regional Colloquium setelah edisi perdana pada tahun 2018. Pada edisi kali ini, Regional Colloquium mengambil kawasan Timur Tengah sebagai fokus utama, dan bertemakan “Post-Trump Middle East: Isu-Isu Geopolitik di Wilayah Timur Tengah Pasca Lengsernya Presiden Donald Trump“. Dengan fokus untuk membahas mengenai implikasi terpilihnya Joe Biden sebagai presiden baru Amerika Serikat terhadap stabilitas regional Timur Tengah, IIS UGM mengundang 4 pembicara pada kesempatan tersebut. Pada sesi panel pertama, IIS UGM mengundang Prof. Dr. Bambang Cipto, Guru Besar Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta dan Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada, yang akan membahas mengenai proyeksi kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat terhadap kawasan Timur Tengah pada era Presiden Joe Biden.

Sesi pertama tersebut dibuka oleh Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika, staf peneliti IIS UGM selaku moderator, dan dimulai oleh Prof. Bambang Cipto yang memaparkan materinya yang berjudul “Kepentingan Amerika di Timur Tengah”. Prof. Cipto menuturkan, bahwa Kepentingan utama Amerika Serikat di Timur Tengah adalah mempertahankan eksistensi Israel dan melindungi kepentingan Israel di Timur Tengah, karena Israel adalah perpanjangan tangan bagi Amerika di kawasan tersebut. Pengaruh lobi Yahudi yang kuat di Amerika Serikat, salah satunya lewat AIPAC memberikan jaminan bahwa presiden AS terpilih selalu mempertahankan eksistensi Israel dari gangguan negara lain di Timur Tengah. Sebagai “anak emas” AS, Israel menikmati bantuan luar negeri dalam jumlah besar dari AS, yang dialihkan Israel untuk merealisasikan superioritas militer di kawasan. Selain itu, dukungan AS terhadap Israel juga dapat dilihat dalam PBB, dimana Israel selalu memiliki posisi yang kuat karena dukungan AS. Sebagai penutup Prof. Cipto menekankan bahwa AS dibawah Biden kemungkinan besar akan tetap mempertahankan kehadirannya di Timur Tengah via Israel, meskipun dengan dengan beberapa penyesuaian pada kebijakan peninggalan AS.

“Principled but Pragmatist : Proyeksi Politik Luar Negeri Joe Biden di Timur Tengah” merupakan judul materi Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro  pada sesi kedua panel pertama. Dr. Rachmat membahas mengenai beberapa tantangan yang harus dihadapi oleh Biden dalam menangani kawasan Timur Tengah, yang disebut Biden sebagai salah satu kawasan penting dalam tulisannya “Why America Must Lead again : Rescuing U.S Foreign Policy After Trump”. Biden memandang bahwa AS kini sudah tidak lagi menjadi pemimpin global, dan Biden ingin memperbarui kebijakan luar negeri AS untuk mendukung AS kembali ke posisi tersebut. Namun, terkait dengan kawasan Timur Tengah Biden harus mempersiapkan AS terhadap beberapa tantangan, seperti : (1) bagaimana AS akan menangani Iran, (2) menentukan sikap terhadap Turki, (3) merumuskan dan menjalankan kebijakan pendukung demokrasi dan partisipasi politik yang lebih luas di kawasan, (4) menjadi penengah “yang adil” bagi kesepakatan damai yang benar benar menekankan kepada kepentingan Palestina, dan (5) menemukan penyelesaian “yang diterima” secara luas terhadap krisis Yaman, Civil War di Suriah dan Instabilitas Irak dan Afghanistan.

Pada panel kedua yang bertemakan geopolitik dan perdamaian terkini di kawasan Timur Tengah, IIS mengundang Dr. Siti Mutiah Setiawati, Dosen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional Universitas Gadjah Mada dan Drs. Nur Munir, Direktur Islamic and Middle East Research Center, Universitas Indonesia. Dr. Siti Mutiah membuka panel dengan memaparkan mengenai signifikansi geopolitik dari wilayah Palestina yang seringkali menjadi sumber konflik dan instabilitas kawasan. Bagi bangsa Arab, wilayah Palestina merupakan tanah yang sudah mereka tinggali dari tahun 60 M, dan juga merupakan tempat suci ketiga bagi umat Islam, yang merupakan agama yang dianut oleh mayoritas bangsa Arab. Di sisi lain, Palestina juga memiliki nilai penting bagi bangsa Yahudi, karena wilayah Palestina merupakan wilayah yang dijanjikan oleh Tuhan bagi orang-orang Yahudi, dan tidak ada kompromi untuk wilayah Palestina. Perbedaan nilai dan kepercayaan inilah yang melatari konflik berkepanjangan diantara negara-negara Arab dengan Israel atas wilayah Palestina.  Meskipun begitu, Setelah tahun 1973, perkembangan baru mulai terjadi dalam bentuk dimulainya gelombang pembukaan hubungan diplomatik negara Arab dengan Israel dan mulai terpecahnya Pan-Arabisme.gelombang ini diawali oleh Mesir pada 1978, Yordania pada 1994 dan dan Uni Emirat Arab serta Bahrain pada tahun 2020.

Pada sesi terakhir, Drs. Nur Munir membawakan materinya yang berjudul “Road Path Toward the Future of Jerusalem According to the View of the State of Israel : Academic Search to Find a Proper Political Standing of the Republic of Indonesiato Contribute Making a Better World”. Drs Nur Munir memaparkan sudut pandang Israel terhadap signifkansi wilayah Palestina, terutama kota Yerusalem sebagai salah satu dasar kebijakan Israel. Drs. Nur Munir menekankan, bahwa untuk mencapai perdamaian dan stabilitas regional di Timur Tengah, diperlukan pemahaman atas signifikansi wilayah tersebut bagi bangsa Yahudi dan Israel, karena ada bagian yang dapat sejalan dan tidak sejalan dengan kepentingan umat Islam di Arab. Selain itu, konflik dan sengketa wilayah Palestina kini tidak bisa hanya dipandang sebagai isu politik dunia Arab semata, tetapi juga sebagai isu politik dunia Islam secara menyeluruh. Sebagai penutup, Drs. Nur Munir menyimpulkan bahwa  pemahaman ini juga diperlukan oleh Indonesia dalam peran aktifnya dalam mendukung resolusi konflik dan kemerdekaan Palestina, yang sejalan dengan Alinea 1 dan 4 Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia serta kebijakan politik luar negeri yang bebas aktif.

Penulis : Raditya Bomantara

Penyunting : Handono Ega P.

[RECAP] Beyond The Great Wall #12 : China 2020: Flashbacks and Future Challenges

/in , /by

On Friday (11/12), Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) organized another discussion forum, the 12th and the last Beyond the Great Wall (BTGW) of 2020. This forum discussed “China 2020: Flashbacks and Future Challenges”. Speaking were Arum Dyah Rinjani (fresh graduate of Department of International Relations Universitas Mataram), Lazarus Andja Karunia (part-time staff for Direktorat Riset Industri UGM), and Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro (lecturer at Department of International Relations UGM).

Arum Dyah Rinjani commenced the forum with her presentation on “Maritime Environmental Security: Implications of Nine-dash Line Claims on Maritime Environmental Degradation in South China Sea”. China’s nine-dash line claims steered several Chinese policies on the territory, causing a handful of maritime conflicts. From 2009-2016, 8.795 news on maritime conflicts were released, in contrast with mere 25 on maritime environmental security and resource protection in the area.

While most of China’s activities in SCS relate to maritime security, at least two of them contributed to severe environmental degradation: land reclamation and overfishing. China has been doing land reclamation since 2013, making up 3.200 ha of artificial island. The activity destroyed reefs, increased muddiness, released harmful chemicals, created sedimentary sands which killed underwater organisms, and inflicted several destructions beyond repair. Meanwhile, China used large ships, dangerous substances, and heavy equipment in fishing. China’s overfishing caused decrease in fish stocks and catches, endangered biodiversity, harmed reefs, and sparked clashes with other countries. Ecologically, the phenomenon made one of the worst overfishing and reef degradation records in history. It is 99% China’s fault, Arum claimed.

Lazarus Andja continued with discussions on “Great Peek Forward: How Surveillance Technology Shaped China’s Response Towards Coronavirus”. By surveillance, Andja meant structured observation. China has frequently utilized surveillance technology, even prior to the pandemic. There were at least 2.58 million cameras in Chongqing used to observe 15.35 million people, particularly for law enforcement and automatic response for violations through the social credit system. The same was also done in Xinjiang to supervise people and limit mobility. However, surveillance was still localized and yet to reach national scale.

To better understand the case, Andja used the post-panoptic surveillance concept. It means the use of several separate surveillance tools which, at the end, will consolidate into one strategy. Post-panoptic surveillance is not limited to physical institutions like schools, prisons, and factories, hence the lack of awareness of the object while being observed. Moreover, it is used not to control, but to discipline. Three aspects make up post-panoptic surveillance: surveillant assemblage, deterritorialization, and reassembly.

Surveillant assemblage means the tools used to execute surveillance. In China, it includes color coding, drones, social credit system, and social media supervision. Alipay Health Code uses color coding to indicate different health levels in Hangzhou to limit mobility. People in Hangzhou can only go to green-coded areas in the app. Travelling to yellow areas will end up with requirement of one-week quarantine, while visit to red areas require two-week quarantine. Moreover, drones function to assist observation and give out reminders to obey health protocols. Failure to obey will result in deduction of social credit points, while good deeds—i.e. serving as front-liner health workers—will be rewarded with extra points. The more points one has, the more social opportunities will be available. In addition, the government uses social media surveillance to sensor critics and rebellious acts through keyword filtering.

Deterritorialization is data gathering from physical space and creation of individual data doubles. In deterritorializing, the government partnered with at least four parties: (1) with Alibaba who assisted data gathering regarding individual health risk; (2) with Baidu’s AI technology Intelligent Changsan which processes citizen reports by phone; (3) with SkyNet who assisted the police through CCTV observation; (4) and with MicroMultiCopter which supplied 100 drones to 11 cities.

Lastly, reassembly is the process of gathering data doubles in accordance with the need of users. In China, amongst the various users are the war room (which is the center of city and village level supervision), the central government, and the police. That said, the people’s biggest fear is surveillance creep or data abuse by the authorities.

Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro delivered the last presentation on “Technology and Daily Lives of the Chinese: Is It Convenience, Fear, or Something Else?”. He showed different pictures (some of them taken directly by him) to show changes in daily conduct supported by the advancement of technology in China. The first picture exhibits a street merchant in China providing a barcode as means of payment, indicating China’s progress towards a cashless society. The second picture showcased wireless charging facilities in lamp posts across Wuhan.

The next picture captured Meituan Dianping app—similar to Gojek, providing several services in one platform—and Ele.Me—which delivers food with drones—that facilitates convenience for Chinese people. However, as much as it is efficient, the existence of these digital convenience sparked protests from partner restaurants because of its high fee. There’s also growing concerns of data abuse.

Moreover, technology allows everyone to easily access many services and do many things through mobile phones, including livestreaming features. Nonetheless, again, such convenience brings new concerns: recently, there was a man in China who got imprisoned after exposing personal data of a woman recently infected by COVID-19 following club visits. Nowadays, China also adopts face recognition technology that is advanced enough to identify masked faces.

While all the hi-tech tools mentioned above accommodate comfort and efficiency, they also pose obstacles to certain groups of the society, in particular the elderly.

Writer : Denise Michelle

Editor : Medisita Febrina

[RECAP] Beyond The Great Wall #12 : Cina di Penghujung 2020: Kilas Balik dan Tantangan ke Depan

/in /by

Pada Jumat (11/12) lalu, Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) kembali mengadakan forum diskusi Beyond the Great Wall (BTGW) yang ke-12, sekaligus yang terakhir di tahun 2020. Forum BTGW yang ke-12 ini mengangkat tema “Cina di Penghujung 2020: Kilas Balik dan Tantangan ke Depan” dengan menghadirkan tiga orang pembicara, yaitu: Arum Dyah Rinjani (Lulusan Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Mataram), Lazarus Andja Karunia (Tenaga Mahasiswa Paruh Waktu Direktorat Riset Industri UGM), dan Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro (Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional UGM).

Pemaparan pertama disampaikan oleh Arum Dyah Rinjani dengan judul “Keamanan Lingkungan Maritim: Implikasi Klaim Nine-Dash Line Terhadap Degradasi Lingkungan Laut di Laut Cina Selatan”. Eksistensi klaim Nine-Dash Line Cina telah “menyetir” berbagai kebijakan yang diambil oleh Cina di Laut Cina Selatan sehingga menyebabkan berbagai konflik maritim di sana. Pada tahun 2009-2016, terdapat sekitar 8.795 berita mengenai perselisihan maritim di Laut Cina Selatan, sedangkan hanya ada 25 laporan berita mengenai isu keamanan lingkungan laut dan perlindungan sumber daya laut di Laut Cina Selatan.

Meskipun dinamika kegiatan Cina di Laut Cina Selatan didominasi oleh diskursus mengenai keamanan maritim, namun setidaknya terdapat dua kegiatan Cina yang turut berkontribusi terhadap degradasi lingkungan laut di Laut Cina Selatan, yaitu reklamasi pulau dan overfishing. Kegiatan reklamasi telah dilakukan Beijing sejak Desember 2013 dan telah mencapai luas 3.200 hektar. Dampak dari kegiatan reklamasi ini adalah hancurnya sistem terumbu karang, sejumlah besar kerusakan yang tidak dapat diperbaiki, peningkatan kekeruhan air dan pelepasan bahan kimia, dan endapan pasir yang akan membunuh organisme laut. Sementara itu, kegiatan overfishing yang dilakukan Cina di Laut Cina Selatan menggunakan kapal-kapal berkapasitas besar, bahan yang destruktif, dan alat-alat berat. Dampaknya adalah penurunan stok ikan di lautan dan jumlah tangkapan, penurunan angka hewan langka, kerusakan terumbu karang, serta ketegangan dengan negara lain. Menurut pandangan ekologis, fenomena yang terjadi di Laut Cina Selatan ini adalah salah satu fenomena terburuk dalam perikanan dan kerusakan terumbu karang dan Cina 99% bertanggung jawab atas kerusakan tersebut.

Pemaparan kedua dilanjutkan oleh Lazarus Andja Karunia yang membahas “Great Peek Forward: Bagaimana Teknologi Surveilans Membentuk Respons Tiongkok Terhadap Virus Corona”. Dalam pemaparan ini, yang dimaksud dengan surveilans adalah observasi terstruktur. Sebelum pandemi, teknologi surveilans sudah banyak digunakan di Cina. Terdapat setidaknya 2,58 juta kamera di Chongqing untuk mengamati 15,35 juta orang yang utamanya digunakan untuk penegakan hukum serta membangun sistem respon otomatis terhadap pelanggaran hukum melalui social credit system. Operasi surveilans juga digunakan di Xinjiang untuk mengawasi warga dan membatasi gerak. Namun, sistem ini masih bersifat lokal dan belum menyeluruh secara nasional.

Dalam menjelaskan hal ini, Lazarus Andja menggunakan kerangka konseptual Surveilans Post-Panoptik, yaitu penggunaan alat-alat surveilans yang cenderung terpisah namun pada akhirnya akan mengerucut pada satu strategi. Post-panoptik tidak terbatas pada institusi fisik seperti sekolah, penjara, dan pabrik, sehingga pengawasannya tidak terasa dan tidak terlihat, dan bertujuan untuk mengontrol, bukan mendisiplinkan. Terdapat tiga aspek dalam surveilans post-panoptik, yaitu surveillant assemblage, de-territorialization, dan reassembly.

Surveillant assemblage adalah alat-alat yang digunakan untuk surveilans. Surveillant assemblage yang digunakan di Tiongkok dalam pandemi adalah penggunaan kode warna, penggunaan drone, adaptasi social credit system, dan pengawasan media sosial. Kode warna digunakan dalam aplikasi Alipay Health Code untuk menentukan tingkat kesehatan sehingga penduduk di Hangzhou hanya bisa berpindah ke lokasi yang berwarna hijau di aplikasi. Jika mendatangi lokasi yang berwarna kuning, maka warga akan diminta karantina selama satu minggu dan jika lokasinya berwarna merah akan diminta karantina selama dua minggu. Di samping itu, drone juga digunakan untuk mengawasi dan mengingatkan warga mengenai protokol kesehatan. Pelanggar protokol kesehatan akan dikurangi poinnya dalam social credit system dan tenaga kesehatan lini depan akan diberi tambahan poin. Poin-poin ini nantinya akan berguna karena dengan poin yang semakin banyak, maka kesempatan sosial yang dimiliki pun semakin luas. Pengawasan media sosial pun terus dilakukan oleh pemerintah karena setiap kritik dan perlawanan terhadap kebijakan pemerintah di ranah online akan disensor melalui keyword filtering.

Yang dimaksud dengan deterritorialization adalah pengambilan data dari ruang fisik dan pembentukan data double dari individu. Bentuk kemitraan pemerintah Cina dalam deterritorialization dilakukan setidaknya dalam empat aspek, yaitu Alibaba yang membantu pengumpulan data masyarakat terkait resiko kesehatan tiap individu, Artificial Intelligence (AI) milik Baidu bernama Intelligent Changsan yang digunakan untuk memproses pelaporan warga melalui telepon, SkyNet yang membantu kepolisian mengawasi melalui jaringan kamera CCTV, dan MicroMultiCopter yang menyuplai 100 buah drone ke 11 kota.

Reassembly adalah penyatuan ulang data double sesuai kebutuhan institusi pengguna. Reassembly oleh Tiongkok digunakan oleh war room (pusat pengawasan tingkat kota dan desa), pemerintah pusat, dan kepolisian. Namun, yang menjadi ketakutan utama masyarakat Tiongkok adalah surveillance creep atau penyalahgunaan data oleh pihak yang berwenang.

Pemaparan terakhir disampaikan oleh Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro mengenai “Teknologi dan Hidup Keseharian Warga Cina: Kemudahan, Ketakutan, atau Apa?”. Pemaparan ini menampilkan berbagai foto (beberapa di antaranya difoto langsung oleh Pak Rachmat) yang menunjukkan berbagai perubahan yang disebabkan oleh kemajuan teknologi di Cina. Foto pertama adalah foto penjual kaki lima di Cina yang di gerobak jualannya terdapat barcode sebagai alat pembayaran. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa teknologi telah mengubah wajah Cina yang berusaha menjadi cashless society. Foto kedua menjelaskan adanya teknologi mengisi baterai handphone secara wireless dengan menggunakan piranti yang tersedia di beberapa tiang lampu di Wuhan.

Selanjutnya, terdapat foto aplikasi Meituan Dianping (sejenis aplikasi Gojek dengan berbagai layanan dalam satu aplikasi) dan Ele.Me yang memberikan kemudahan bagi banyak orang. Namun, di sisi lain, keberadaan aplikasi menimbulkan protes dari pihak restoran mitra karena mengenakan charge yang besar bagi restoran mitra dan malah cenderung merugikan. Ada pula kekhawatiran dari masyarakat akan adanya penyalahgunaan data oleh pihak Meituan Dianping. Kemajuan teknologi lainnya adalah aplikasi Ele.Me mulai mengoperasikan drone untuk mengantar makanan ke lokasi pemesan.

Selain itu, kemajuan teknologi membuat orang dapat dengan mudahnya melakukan dan mengakses banyak hal melalui telepon genggam, sehingga banyak orang mulai melakukan live streaming kegiatan yang dilakukan. Namun, kemudahan ini juga seringkali menimbulkan kerugian bagi banyak orang, seperti yang terjadi baru-baru ini di mana seorang lelaki di Cina dipenjara karena mengekspos data pribadi seorang perempuan yang baru saja terinfeksi COVID-19 dan menghina perempuan tersebut karena terdapat foto ia mengunjungi club dan bar selama dua minggu sebelum ia terinfeksi COVID-19 sehingga menimbulkan banyak komentar negatif.

Kini terdapat pula teknologi pemindai wajah untuk mengidentifikasi orang yang menggunakan masker. Berbagai kemajuan teknologi ini di satu sisi membawa kemudahan, namun di sisi lain menimbulkan kesulitan tersendiri bagi beberapa kelompok masyarakat, terutama yang sudah tua.

Penulis : Denise Michelle

Penyunting : Medisita Febrina

[RECAP] Annual Convention on The Global South : Global South in the Era of Pandemic : Order, Development and Security

/in /by

Sambutan oleh Dr. Riza Noer Arfani, Direktur Institute of International Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (IIS UGM) menandai dimulainya rangkaian kegiatan Annual Convention on the Global South tahun 2020 yang bertemakan “Global South in the Era of Pandemic : Order, Development and Security”. Kegiatan yang berlangsung selama 5 hari dari tanggal 2 November hingga 6 November 2020 ini terbagi menjadi dua bagian, yaitu sesi conference (2 & 3 November 2020) dan Panel Discussion ( 4, 5 dan 6 November 2020). Seusai sambutan, hari pertama dilanjutkan dengan keynote speech oleh H.E Febrian Alphyanto Ruddyard, Direktur Jenderal Kerjasama Multilateral, Kementerian Luar Negeri yang mewakili H.E Retno Marsudi, Menteri Luar Negeri Republik Indonesia.

Hari pertama conference dipandu oleh Dr. Randy Wirasta Nandyatama (Dosen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada) yang berperan sebagai moderator, dan menghadirkan tiga pembicara, yaitu Dr. Farish A Noor (Associate Professor, Rajatnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University), Siswo Pramono (Kepala Badan Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Kebijakan, Kementerian Luar Negeri RI) dan Shahar Hameiri (Associate Professor, School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland, Australia).

Farish membuka sesi pertama dengan memaparkan mengenai bagaimana generasi pendahulu masyarakat Asia Tenggara telah mengalami apa yang disebut sebagai “krisis” sebelumnya, dan berhasil menemukan solusinya. Farish yakin, bahwa generasi saat ini akan dapat melewati krisis Covid-19, karena setiap generasi memiliki pengalamannya masing masing dalam menghadapi krisis, dan akan menemukan cara untuk mengatasinya. Untuk menyambung materi Farish, Siswo menyampaikan bagaimana Indonesia mengembangkan kerjasama internasional, baik secara bilateral maupun multilateral sebagai upaya mengatasi krisis yang disebabkan oleh pandemi Covid-19. Sebagai penutup hari pertama, Shahar menyampaikan ancaman dari Covid-19 sebagai ancaman yang bersifat non tradisional, yang menggoyahkan fondasi global governance. Shahar berargumen bahwa kegagalan pada global dan nasional dalam menghadapi Covid-19 berawal dari pergeseran government menjadi governance dan regulatory statehood pada tahun 1970an.

Pada hari kedua, IIS UGM mengundang 3 pembicara, yaitu H.E Salman Al Farisi (Duta Besar Republik Indonesia untuk Afrika Selatan, Botswana, Eswatini dan Lesotho), Drs. Muhadi Sugiono (Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada) dan Dr. Heloise Weber (Dosen School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland). Hari kedua dipandu oleh Dr. Luqman nul Hakim (Dosen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada) selaku moderator sesi.

H.E Salman membuka sesi hari kedua dengan memaparkan materinya yang berjudul “The Shifting Dynamics in Africa : Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Towards the Struggling Region”. Pada materinya tersebut, H.E Salman menjabarkan berbagai upaya kerjasama yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah Indonesia dengan negara-negara Afrika, termasuk dalam upaya mitigasi pandemi Covid-19 lewat kerjasama global pengembangan vaksin. Hari kedua dilanjutkan oleh Muhadi, yang memaparkan materinya dengan tajuk “Covid-19 in the Perspective of Global Divide”. Lewat materinya, Muhadi memaparkan bagaimana negara-negara selatan dihadapkan kepada berbagai problematika dalam menghadapi pandemi, termasuk dilema zero sum policy dimana negara harus memilih diantara prioritas kesehatan atau ekonomi, kerentanan politik, hingga bargaining position yang lemah dalam mendapatkan suplai alat-alat Kesehatan dibanding negara-negara utara. Sebagai pembicara terakhir, Heloise memaparkan materinya yang berjudul “Politics of Development and Injustices” dan mengangkat isu-isu ketidaksetaraan dan ketidakadilan terhadap berbagai pihak yang termarginalisasi, terutama dalam konteks pandemi Covid-19. Berakhirnya pemaparan Heloise sekaligus menandakan akhir dari sesi konferensi Go-South 2020.

Panel diskusi menghadirkan 4 panel berbeda dari tanggal 4 hingga 6 November 2020, dan menghadirkan presentasi paper oleh paper presenter  yang berasal dari berbagai universitas dari dalam maupun luar negeri. Pada hari ketiga, dilangsungkan diskusi panel pertama yang bertajuk “National, Transnational and Regional Dynamics of the Global South in Addressing Global Pandemics” dengan dimoderatori oleh M. Indrawan Jatmika (Staf Peneliti IIS UGM) dan menghadirkan judul 4 paper. Pada hari keempat, dilangsungkan dua panel diskusi sekaligus, yaitu panel kedua dan ketiga. Panel kedua  yang berjudul “Addressing New Non Traditional Securities” menghadirkan Muhammad Rum (Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada) sebagai moderator dan memuat presentasi dari 3 judul paper.

Seusai istirahat makan siang, hari kedua dilanjutkan dengan panel ketiga yang berjudul “Pandemic and Crafting the Global Solidarity of the Global South”, dengan dipandu oleh Muhadi Sugiono (Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada) yang berperan sebagai moderator diskusi dari 3 judul paper. Hari kelima  menghadirkan panel terakhir yang bertemakan “Pandemic and the Changing Global Political Economy of the Global South” dan mendiskusikan 4 judul paper. Sesi terakhir ini dipandu oleh Irfan Ardhani (Dosen Departemen Ilmu Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Gadjah Mada). Berakhirnya sesi diskusi panel terakhir tersebut menandakan akhir dari rangkaian kegiatan Annual Convention on The Global South : Global South in the Era of Pandemic : Order, Development and Security.

 

[RECAP] Annual Convention on The Global South: Global South in the Era of Pandemic: Order, Development and Security

/in , /by

Welcoming remarks by Dr. Riza Noer Arfani, Director of Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada, marked the beginning of Annual Convention on the Global South/GO SOUTH 2020. This year’s GO-SOUTH brought up the theme of “Global South in the Era of Pandemic: Order, Development and Security”. The event ran for five days from 2nd to 6th of November 2020 and was divided into conference (2 & 3 November 2020) and panel discussion (4-6 November 2020). The opening ceremony continues with keynote speech delivered by H.E Febrian Alphyanto Ruddyard, Director General of Multilateral Cooperation of Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs, H. E. Retno Marsudi.

Dr. Randy Wirasta Nandyatama (lecturer in International Relations Department of Universitas Gadjah Mada) moderated the discussion on the first day of the conference. Three speakers were present, Dr. Farish A Noor (Associate Professor of Rajatnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University), Siswo Pramono (Head of Policy Research and Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia) and Shahar Hameiri (Associate Professor, School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland, Australia).

Farish began the session with his presentation on how South East Asian older generations have faced and succeeded overcoming past crises. Farish believed that this generation will certainly go past the COVID-19 crisis and overcome it, as every generation has their own experiences with crisis and undoubtedly finds solutions to tackle them. Still speaking on crisis, Siswo elaborated on Indonesia’s effort in developing bilateral and multilateral cooperation to overcome COVID-induced problems. Wrapping up the first day of the conference, Shahar challenged the foundation of global governance. He argued that the shift from government to governance and regulatory statehood in 1970s caused the current failure in tackling the virus, both at national and international level.

On the second day of the conference, IIS UGM invited three speakers, namely H.E Salman Al Farisi (Ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia for South Africa, Botswana, Eswatini and Lesotho), Drs. Muhadi Sugiono (lecturer in International Relations Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada) and Dr. Heloise Weber (lecturer in School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland). Dr. Luqman nul Hakim (lecturer in International Relations Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada) moderated the discussion.

H.E Salman opened the second day session by delivering his speech on “The Shifting Dynamics in Africa: Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Towards the Struggling Region”. He elaborated on various Indonesia-African countries cooperation efforts, including the ones aimed at COVID-19 mitigation, namely global cooperation on vaccine development. Muhadi continued the session discussing “Covid-19 in the Perspective of Global Divide”. He explained that the global south was faced with different problems amidst the pandemic, namely: (1) zero sum policy dilemma, in which countries need to choose between priorities of public health or the economy; (2) political instability; (3) and weak bargaining position in accessing health supplies compared to northern countries. Lastly, Heloise delivered her speech on “Politics of Development and Injustices”. She brought up issues of inequality and injustice experienced by the marginalized, specifically in the context of COVID pandemic. The end of Heloise’ presentation marked the end of the conference session of GO SOUTH 2020.

IIS UGM organized four different panels in the span of three days, inviting paper presenters from local and foreign universities to elaborate on their research. On the third day, four papers discussing “National, Transnational and Regional Dynamics of the Global South in Addressing Global Pandemics” were presented in the panel, moderated by M. Indrawan Jatmika (researcher at IIS UGM).

The second panel was held the next day under the theme of “Addressing New Non Traditional Securities”. Muhammad Rum (lecturer at International Relations Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada) moderated the discussion for all three papers presented. Also held on the fourth day, the third panel discussing “Pandemic and Crafting the Global Solidarity of the Global South” presented three papers, moderated by Muhadi Sugiono (lecturer at International Relations Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada). The last panel on the fifth day presented four papers examining the theme of “Pandemic and the Changing Global Political Economy of the Global South”, moderated by Irfan Ardhani (lecturer at International Relations Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada). The end of the last panel discussion marked the end of the Annual Convention on The Global South 2020: Global South in the Era of Pandemic: Order, Development and Security.

[RECAP] Beyond the Great Wall #11: The Rise and Future of China’s Power Projection

/in , /by

On 20 November 2020, Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada organized its 11th edition of Beyond the Great Wall via Zoom discussing “The Rise and Future of China’s Power Projection”. Invited in the forum were Angelo Wijaya, founder of Student Association of Belt and Road Initiative (SABRI) Chapter UGM and Demas Nauvarian, a international relations graduate student in Universitas Airlangga.Angelo presented his review of the book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap, while Demas delivered his presentation discussing “The Evolution of Chinese Geostrategic Thinking and Strategic Culture: From Sea Power to Space Power.” Indrawan Jatmika, researcher for IIS UGM, helped moderate the discussion.

Angelo began his review stating that in the near future, China is going to become the number one strongest power in the world as its economy will rise in 2024, even topping the US. Such potential certainly becomes a threat to the US, hence the US’ tendencies to disagree and contend with China, and eventually waging the trade war. The book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap attempts to complement Thucydides’ argument in his legendary tale The Peloponnesian War. Graham Allison, the author of the book, introduces the term “Thucydides’ trap” to describe the tendency to wage war when a new power emerges to replace existing ones. The argument is not entirely correct as, in reality, not all countries have such tendency.

One question, then, emerges: will China and the US be able to survive the Thucydides’ trap? Angelo laid out a few points that the US needs to pay close attention to. First, they need to reconsider and clarify their vital interests. In this case, is the South China Sea dispute of top priority? Moreover, they need to examine more closely what the Chinese are doing, particularly in regards to its foreign policy. They will, then, need to proceed with the strategies—which, in its formulation, should consider conditions at the macro level—accordingly. Lastly, domestic challenges should also be taken into consideration in the formulation of foreign policy. Said challenges include the matter of trust given by domestic institutions, social political system, and the general public.

Angelo wrapped up his speech with a call to perceive China’s rise holistically; basically, China’s rise also caters to the US interest. “In its path to becoming a new power, it’s wise to recall this quote from the Spiderman movie, with a great power comes greater responsibility,” Angelo said.

The second session focused on China’s rarely discussed space and naval power. In explaining China’s grand strategy to harmonize their power instruments, Demas showcased that there were two approaches the Chinese use: (1) the geostrategic—prioritizing geographic factors—and military approach; (2) the strategic cultural approach which deals with geographic and historic aspects as means to achieve welfare. Just as every country prioritizes certain issues in the purpose of increasing their power, China prioritizes its naval sector.

Speaking on naval strategy, Demas explained that two theoretical approaches could be utilized in examining a state’s classical sea power. First, the Mahan approach believes that naval strategy ought to focus on navy modernization. Hence, use of the navy, strength, and sea control constitute the most important factors. The second approach, Corbett’s maritime strategy, highlights the need to combine land and sea factors to control the sea. Military and civil elements, land and sea power, as well as sea command are crucial. Since adopting the naval sector strategy, China repeatedly used different approaches in accordance to its ever-changing leadership goals. As of now, China’s strategy focuses on defending what they own and claiming on whatever they don’t. The strategy explicitly exhibits how China tends to be assertive in border issues, most importantly in the South China Sea dispute.

Meanwhile, Demas argued that China’s space strategy depends on its maritime strategy. Currently, the Chinese space force is focusing on various cooperation efforts with other countries for development. While its gradually rising space force seemingly threatens western countries, it is important to note that China’s strategies in achieving its goals always differ with that of the west’. In its strategy formulation, China perceives the world in two different ways. One way is through the lens of Confucianism which avoids use of military means to fulfill national goals. Another way is the realist para bellum perspective which believes that the nature of international politics is anarchic, hence the need to wage war. China sees from both perspectives in arranging its grand strategy of space and naval power.