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.

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 2^nd to 6^th 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.

On Friday (18/9), Institute of International Studies/IIS UGM organized another edition of its bimonthly discussion forum Beyond the Great Wall/BTGW online. In its tenth edition, present were Alfin Febrian Basundoro, Vice President of UPII UGM and Caesar Leonardo, Director of Student Association of Belt and Road Initiative/SABRI UGM Chapter. Under the theme “China: Initiatives in Energy and Transportation”, the two speakers spoke on China’s dynamics in developing the two sectors which boost the growth of Chinese economy, namely energy and transportation.

Alfin began the first session by delivering his presentation on “New Eurasian Land Bridge: China’s Railroad Sector Expansion”. The railroad sector has long been serving as the backbone of the Chinese economy, in which all provinces in China had been linked via railway by 2007. With a total 140,000 km of railway, the massive rail network supports provision of rapid trains for millions of citizens and names China the country with the longest rapid train network in the world. Besides domestic development, regional cooperation realized through New Eurasian Land Bridge also supported China’s railroad expansion.

New Eurasian Land Bridge/NELB is a rail-based corridor linking China, Central Asia and Eastern Europe. As part of the Belt and Road Initiative, this program is an implementation of the modern silk road aimed at supporting intercontinental economic activities via Central Asia. Compared to the sea route which is relatively longer and takes more time to pass, land route is ultimately a better alternative. Moreover, land route allows better movements of commodities as trains are able to carry more cargo compared to planes.  Since its first operation in 2011, NELB saw significant increase in traffic every year and has been playing an important role linking two continents and promoting Chinese-European investment.

Alfin claimed that NELB benefited both parties; however, to achieve such benefits, it needs to face challenges ahead. To China, NELB promises effectivity, as well as ease of transportation and movement of commodity; bolsters increase in trade with European countries; and supports diversification of commodities exported. To Eurasian countries, NELB guarantees new free trade zone in Central Asia, Eurasian interconnectivity, and connection to other European economic corridors. On the other hand, NELB needs to overcome several obstacles, ranging from differences in railway width, imbalanced infrastructure, political conditions of related countries, to lack of human resource standardization.

He concluded that NELB is of paramount importance to China’s long-running railroad expansion. Not only does NELB serves China’s interests, but also it supports Central Asian development by providing effective distribution route to accelerate movement of commodities from two continents. No wonder NELB is one of the five priority programs of China’s in Central Asia.

Leo delivered the second session discussing “Chinese Nuclear Energy Initiatives”. Similar with that of transportation, the energy sector is central for the growth of modern Chinese economy. Nuclear development, initiated by Mao Zedong, began in 1950s and was limited to nuclear as mere weapons. Under Deng Xiaoping, nuclear was perceived as more of an alternative energy source through his program of “four modernizations” as one of the answers to the question of Chinese energy security. Qinshan nuclear reactor, then, became China’s first and started operation in 1991. Its establishment commenced the era of Chinese progressive nuclear energy development, which is expected to surpass American and European reactor energy export by 2035.

According to Leo, China preferred nuclear energy to other alternative sources due to several advantages. Nuclear emits less emission compared to fossil fuel because of its high material efficiency. Moreover, nuclear-generated electricity is relatively affordable compared to that from fossil fuel or solar panel. Politics-wise, western countries already left nuclear behind and started seeking other safer alternatives. Hence, China has the opportunity to lead the global nuclear energy development industry.

China’s nuclear orientation experienced a significant shift. As Leo mentioned, under Deng, China developed nuclear for the sake of domestic energy security. Hence, China cooperated with other nuclear-experienced countries like France and the US. To tackle the problem of limited resources, China also imported uranium from African countries to secure supply. Now, as China has achieved domestic energy security and possessed enough experiences in developing nuclear energy, it prepares itself to become a producer who promotes nuclear energy use to others. BRI supports such shift by giving space for China to initiate cooperation with other countries in developing their own nuclear industries.

Leo wrapped up his presentation by showcasing a number of future challenges China needs to face in developing its nuclear. First, there is an existing doubt in developing nuclear due to security problems like reactor leaks in Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as issues of radioactive waste. Second, other alternative energy sources are more popular. Top fossil fuel industries like Total preferred to invest in solar panels or air turbins compared to nuclear. Third, China’s domestic politics still prefer fossil fuel. The government favors fossil that dominates domestic industrial use, despite the chance of being a global pioneer in nuclear development. All three problems, Leo believes, are the hindrances China has to overcome in the future of nuclear energy development.

---

In commemoration of the seventy-fifth year since the Hiroshima-Nagasaki tragedy, Institute of International Studies/ IIS UGM organized a virtually-guided photo exhibition titled “Through the Eyes of Hibakujumoku: Living Under the Shadows of Nuclear Weapons” on 9 August, 2020. In collaboration with the International Committee of the Red Cross/ICRC, the exhibition was initiated by IIS UGM as part of the 75^th Anniversary of the Atomic Bombing Series. It tried to showcase the urgency of nuclear weapons ban through ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Muhadi Sugiono, a campaigner for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons/ICAN, and Sonya Teresa, an IIS researcher, guided the event.

The event was divided into three sections: virtual exhibition, breakout sessions, and question-and-answer session. The virtual exhibition, itself, comprised of three stages. The first, “A World of Dark Ashes”, told accounts of the catastrophe in the perspective of hibakujumoku—in Japanese, meaning trees that survived the bombing—through narrations delivered by the guide.  The photographs, collected from ICRC, ICAN, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, and other reliable sources exhibited post-explosion atrocities—both physical and psychological—which brought immense trauma upon survivors to this day.

In the second stage, “Greedy Rulers and Screams in Silence”, participants looked at how states insisted on developing nuclear weapons despite evident destructive effects. The photographs also told stories of social movements against nuclear weapons development since the 1950s. However, nuclear race persisted in the 1980s, particularly between the US and the Soviet Union. The phenomenon incited larger demonstrations in Europe, the US, and Japan.

The last stage, “In Our Future, Will Nuclear Weapons Still Be There?”, showcased how states have started discussions on nuclear weapons ban since 1996. However, clash of interest between states continued to be the biggest obstacle in the creation of a legal instrument. In 2017, UN issued a mandate in the form of negotiation for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. To this day, 82 states have signed the Treaty, while 44 others have ratified it. To ensure total abolition, the Treaty needs another seven states to ratify. This is where the Indonesian government needs to step in.

After the exhibition ended, the participants were divided into three small breakout rooms. In the small discussion forums led by IIS representatives, the participants tried to reflect several important questions related to the photographs and the stories behind them: When you hear the word Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did you imagine the same impression as that of hibakujumoku’s? Does the reasoning behind nuclear weapons development make sense? If there were to be a nuclear explosion now, will you survive? The majority of participants agreed that nuclear weapons development is not worth the after effect. Hence, it is necessary that states fully realize the importance of disarmament and total abolition. After answering and exchanging thoughts on the matter, the discussion continued in the larger forum for a question-and-answer session, with added insights from Muhadi Sugiono and Christian Donny Putranto, legal advisor for ICRC.

---

Writer : Brigitta Kalina Tristani Hernawan

Editor : Medisita Febrina

On Saturday (11/7), Institute of International Studies (IIS UGM) organized its bimonthly discussion forum Beyond the Great Wall/BTGW virtually. The ninth edition of BTGW invited Julian Lilihata, MA, alumna of Tsinghua University and Arrizal Anugerah Jaknanihan, undergraduate student of Department of International Relations UGM. The discussion titled “China: Issues Amidst the New Normal” tried to illustrate the challenges China is facing in the era of new normal, while still fighting the relentless COVID-19 pandemic.

Julian began the discussion, “The Second Wave of Coronavirus in Beijing”, by describing the situation of the first wave pandemic in China. When the first outbreak occurred in Wuhan, there had been a mistake in declaring the outset of the virus spread as a result of obscure reporting. According to South China Morning Post, the first case was discovered on 17^th November 2019, while Wall Street Journal reported that the first case was detected on 10^th December 2019. At the dawn of the outbreak, eight doctors tried to warn the public and conduct research on the virus. However, they were stopped by the Wuhan Public Security Bureau and were called to sign a letter declaring their involvement in illegal activity that disrupted public order. The signing was aired via Xinwen Lianbo.

Serious actions were only taken in the beginning of 2020. On 1^st January 2020, the authorities closed Huanan Seafood Market (where the first cases of COVID-19 were discovered). Two weeks later, massive temperature measurement was conducted in several public spaces. People with high body temperature were immediately taken to the hospital. In Beijing, the first two cases were identified on 19^th January 2020. Five days following the discovery, plenty of prevention measures were applied, namely days off work, provision of face masks and hand sanitizers, temperature measurement, disinfection, centralized treatment for COVID-19 patients in 89 hospitals, and termination of religious events and long-distance transportation services. Activities in the week prior to Chinese New Year holiday—from 24^th January to 2^nd February—were major factors in the spike of cases, in which people still travel with public transportations and go on vacations despite lockdown in Wuhan beginning on 23^rd January.

Following the Chinese New Year influx, the first wave of COVID-19 cases in Beijing peaked on 5^th February with additional 114 cases. In response to the phenomenon, the government put various prevention measures in place. In order to disseminate precise and accurate information about government’s discretion regarding the pandemic, mobile application Beijing Health Kit Apps was launched as a medium of communication between the government and the people. The app also served as a digital identification card that can be used in public facilities. Moreover, purchase of fever medicine required identification card as an attempt to record possible COVID-19 cases. The Beijing Social Security Bureau also provided protection for dual-income families. As a result of such fast response, the curve between the first and last two weeks of COVID-19 cases in Beijing fell.

Subsequent to the outbreak, numerous adaptations and changes were made, such as new eating manner and change in reckless spitting habit. Changes were also made in foreign flights, in which foreign citizens were suggested not to fly back to Beijing as many cases were “imported”, meaning that many were transmitted from foreign citizens. The government even stopped direct flights to Beijing and diverted the flights to surrounding cities with less COVID-19 cases. Three days after COVID-19 cases peaked in Beijing, the ban on foreign citizens entry were imposed on 27^th March.

[layerslider id=”29″]

By the end of the first wave, COVID-19 death rate was lower compared to SARS 2003 by virtue of maximal treatment and aggressive prevention policy enforcement. Moreover, digitalization played an important role, as it effectively reduced direct contact through practice of cashless transactions, simplified identification process through digital identification card, and assisted information distribution via Beijing Health Kit App used daily by the people. The presence of volunteers also contributed immensely to alleviating the spread of COVID-19, as they helped keep record of the people in quarantine, distributed food, and assisted in doing house chores unable to be done by those confined. As much as the pandemic affected daily lives directly, it also affected the people indirectly. It roused the people’s quest for rights of free speech, particularly in the case of Dr. Li Wenliang’s death.

After the first wave ended, signs of normal activities that were seen in the first week of June didn’t last long. The following week, three new cases were discovered, two of them found in Fengtai Meat Food Research Center. On 13^th June, another six cases from local transmission in Xinfadi Market—the biggest grocery market in Asia—located in Fengtai District were detected. Responding to the newfound cases, the government immediately took action. Three core steps were taken: sweeping, testing, and isolation. The testing became more massive in the second wave, in which, a week after the new cases emerged, 2.3 million people had been tested. The government also applied wartime mechanism in management standards. In the third week of June, public spaces were, again, closed. Correspondingly, several responsible government officials and authorities of the Xinfadi Market were fired. The second wave was quite distinct compared to the first, as the testing was more aggressive and massive, both on those who were directly and indirectly affected. Several other measures also made the second wave stood out from the first, with extended quarantine duration from 14 days to 21 days, stricter track recording of people, and local isolation, as well as different types of isolation depending on the level of risk: high, moderate, and low.

Arrizal delivered the second presentation titled “From Beijing to the Streets of Hong Kong: How Students Form the Democratization Movement in Contemporary China”. Despite the pandemic, the people of Hong Kong persisted to commemorate the Tiananmen 1989 Tragedy on 4^th June. In China, the Tiananmen Protest had become resilience symbol of democratization movements. Though the discussion on democratization is still taboo in the Chinese government, democracy has long become a part of the Chinese national identity discourse. Before the Chinese Civil War was won by the Chinese Communist Party/ CCP in 1949, Chinese leaders then attempted to adopt democracy as one of the nation’s principles.

Protests—mainly the ones driven by university students—has been occurring in China for a long time, although not always meant to go against the authorities. In mainland China, two phases of protests occurred: protests supported by the political elite in Mao’s era (1949-1976) and 1989-now; and protests organized against the political elite in the era of Republic (1911-1949) until the early post-Mao years (1976-1989). Despite being different in characteristics, these protests should be viewed in unity as a continuous series of events.

Under Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese political system underwent a transition phase and no longer focused on ideological aspects. Such character promoted reform in the field of politics. Unlike in Mao’s presidency, the CCP in Deng’s era encouraged the public to express their opinion. This period is often referred to as the Beijing Spring—derived from the term Arab Spring—as it gave space for pro-democracy movements to rise. One of the most influential pro-democracy symbols were the Xidan Walls illustrating CCP’s “openness” to proceed with the rejuvenation agenda.

One of the most influential student protests in modern Chinese history were the May Fourth 1919. The movement was initiated to counter the outcome of Versailles Treaty which was viewed as an attempt to turn China over to Japan and western countries. The May Fourth became a pillar for the following student protests and eventually prompted the nationalist movement in China. In 1986, students from all over China organized a protest demanding a political reform. The protest secured an indirect support from Hu Yaobang, then CCP’s secretary general. Three years later, the Tiananmen Protest were organized to commemorate his passing. The occurrence was the accumulation and peak of small student protests since 1976.

According to Arrizal, there were—at least—six reasons why protests were often organized by university students. First, the protest culture, which was born in the era of nationalist movements, kept driving reform movements in universities established in said reformation era. Also, presence of moral support and exclusive identity of university students supported such protests. Third, centralized location allowed easier assembly; in 1930, 60% of Chinese students were only concentrated in two cities, Beijing and Shanghai. Fourth, university students, unlike other repressed groups in the civil society, had self-determining characteristics as a group. They were also privileged with exposure to ideas of democracy through formal education and western dissemination. Lastly, university students had weaker bonds with the state ever since the Imperial Civil Examination was abolished in 1905.

Wrapping up his explanation, Arrizal stated that student protests following the May Fourth 1919, Tiananmen 1989, and Hong Kong protests can’t be viewed as entirely separate movements. Said protests should be seen in unity of a long-established democratization movement. Different political, social, and economic condition in China today also influenced the existence of similar protests in the 21^st century.

---

Writer: Denise Michelle
Translator: Medisita Febrina