Paramadina Graduate Schools

Home Diplomacy Newsletter


Interaksi Produktif Antar Warga ASEAN Bisa Hindari Perang

E-mail Cetak PDF

Seminar Umum Strengthening Political Governance For Peace, Security dan Stability in ASEAN

 

JAKARTA - Komunitas ASEAN resmi akan dimulai pada 31 Desember 2015. Semua negara ASEAN tentunya terus menyusun strategi agar kepentingan nasionalnya tidak dirugikan. Berbagai perbedaan pendapat mulai muncul antar negara ASEAN.

Hariqo Wibawa Satria dari Komunitas Peduli ASEAN mengatakan, berbagai gesekan sangat mungkin terjadi di laut, udara dan perbatasan. Namun, semua itu bisa diatasi dengan aturan yang jelas dan adil.

"Interaksi yang produktif dan kuat antar sesama warga negara di ASEAN bisa mencegah konfrontasi bahkan perang," ujarnya. Hariqo juga mengingatkan potensi perang informasi di dunia maya. “Kita perlu media berskala internasional yang mengcover ASEAN, bahkan dunia,” jelas Hariqo.

Hal itu disampaikannya dalam Seminar Umum “Strengthening Political Governance For Peace, Security dan Stability in ASEAN” yang digelar Himpunan Mahasiswa Hubungan Internasional Universitas Jayabaya, Jakarta, di Gedung Rektorat Universitas Jayabaya, Rabu (3/12) sore. Seminar politik keamanan ini dihadiri 110 orang.

Sementara Kasi HAM, Dit Polkam ASEAN, Kemlu RI, Daniel Ardiles Simanjuntak mengatakan, ada tiga karakteristik Komunitas Politik Keamanan di ASEAN. Yaitu, pembentukan norma, tanggung jawab bersama terhadap keamanan, dinamis, outward looking dalam melihat dunia yang semakin terintegrasi dan interpenden.

Pembicara lain, Rocky Intan dari CSIS mengatakan, perang dalam artian kontak langsung memang kecil kemungkinannya, namun perang di bidang ekonomi sekarang ini juga sedang terjadi. "Justru yang perlu diantisipasi adalah konflik yang terjadi di dalam negeri setiap negara ASEAN,” jelasnya.

 

Sumber:

http://international.sindonews.com/read/932647/40/interaksi-produktif-antar-warga-asean-bisa-hindari-perang-1417619025

Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 17:50 )
 

CoC ASEAN - Tiongkok soal laut Tiongkok Selatan

E-mail Cetak PDF

Foto udara tahun 2011 menunjukkan Pulau Pagasa (Harapan), yang merupakan salah satu pulau di gugusan pulau Spratly yang menjadi perselisihan sejumlah negara di sekitar Laut China Selatan, di lepas pantai barat Filipina. (REUTERS/Rolex Dela Pena)/a>


 

Kalaupun CoC berhasil tersusun, do dan dont dari CoC hanya akan efektif jika para pihak bisa saling menegakkan CoC <  click

Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 18:13 )
 

CoC ASEAN - Tiongkok soal laut Tiongkok Selatan

E-mail Cetak PDF

 

Foto udara tahun 2011 menunjukkan Pulau Pagasa (Harapan), yang merupakan salah satu pulau di gugusan pulau Spratly yang menjadi perselisihan sejumlah negara di sekitar Laut China Selatan, di lepas pantai barat Filipina. (REUTERS/Rolex Dela Pena)

 

Oleh : Mohammad Anthoni

 

" Kalaupun CoC berhasil tersusun, do dan dont dari CoC hanya akan efektif jika para pihak bisa saling menegakkan CoC."


Jakarta (ANTARA News) - Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono pada KTT ke-24 ASEAN di Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar, Mei lalu, tegas berujar soal persoalan Laut Tiongkok Selatan "kami tidak dapat ditarik oleh Amerika Serikat atau oleh Tiongkok."

Pada KTT terakhir sebelum digantikan oleh Presiden Joko Widodo per 20 Oktober lalu itu, SBY juga meminta kedua negara itu tidak menggunakan pendekatan militer melainkan pendekatan diplomasi untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan.

SBY telah menunjukkan wujud salah satu kekuatan ASEAN untuk menciptakan kawasan damai.

"Saya ingin ASEAN memiliki pendekatan yang baik untuk negara-negara lain, ke dunia, kami memiliki pola pikir yang sesuai dengan perkembangan zaman," katanya.

ASEAN yang terbentuk tahun 1967 beranggotakan 10 negara, Brunei Darussalam, Filipina, Indonesia, Kamboja, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapura, Thailand, dan Vietnam dengan total penduduk lebih 500 juta jiwa.

ASEAN atau Perhimpunan Bangsa-Bangsa Asia Tenggara akan menyelenggarakan KTT ke-25 pada pertengahan November 2014.

Lebih dari satu dekade, Laut Tiongkok Selatan masih menjadi pekerjaan rumah bagi ASEAN dan Tiongkok sebagai negara tetangga, bahkan negara-negara di luar wilayah itu yang berkepentingan.

Mereka beradu argumentasi dan merujuk kepada hukum-hukum di dalam negerinya masing-masing atau kepada hukum internasional untuk memperkuat klaimnya.

Secara spesifik Mark J. Valencia dalam tulisannya "The South China Sea: Back to the Future?" berpendapat bahwa perairan itu menjadi kawasan sengketa berbahaya dalam perebutan pengaruh atau hegemoni di Asia antara Amerika Serikat dan Tiongkok. (Global Asia, 2010).

Negara-negara di Asia Tenggara berada di tengah-tengah pusaran pengaruh dua negara kekuatan besar itu tambah India dan Jepang.

Perselisihan teritorial maritim di Laut Tiongkok Selatan memiliki potensi untuk berkembang menjadi konflik terbuka antarnegara yang mengklaim sebagian atau seluruhnya dari kawasan itu bagian dari kedaulatannya.

Tumpang-tindih klaim antara Vietnam, Filipina, Malaysia, dan Brunei Darussalam dan juga Tiongkok serta Taiwan menimbulkan ketegangan.

Puncak ketegangan ialah bentrok armada perang Tiongkok dan Vietnam baru-baru ini.

Penyebab bentrokan adalah perusahaan pengeboran minyak Tiongkok yang terus beraktivitas di Pulau Paracel.

Vietnam mengaku memiliki bukti historis dan kedaulatan yang sah di Kepulauan Spratly tetapi Tiongkok telah melanggarnya dengan sengaja.

Tiongkok pernah menyarankan armada laut Vietnam meninggalkan kawasan pulau tersebut karena sudah jelas Pulau Paracel milik mereka.

Tiongkok sampai mengirim 80 kapal laut dan perang, untuk mengamankan proses pengeboran.

Pengerahan armada laut itu disebut Amerika Serikat (AS) sebagai upaya provokasi. Aksi tersebut jelas mengancam kestabilan di Laut Tiongkok Selatan.

Negara-negara di kawasan meningkatkan belanja untuk peralatan militer.

Vietnam dan Filipina pernah menuding Tiongkok sebagai negara besar di kawasan itu ditinjau dari kapabilitas militer dan ekonominya menjadi bertambah agresif dalam menyatakan klaimnya atas kawasan itu.

"Negara-negara anggota ASEAN telah bersepakat menggunakan pendekatan hukum internasional dan tidak menggunakan pendekatan perang alias dibawa ke ranah multilateral atas negara-negara yang klaimnya saling tumpang-tindih," kata Dr Connie Rahakundini Bakrie, dosen Universitas Indonesia, mengomentari isu Laut Tiongkok Selatan yang dibahas KTT ASEAN itu baru-baru ini.

Tiongkok berusaha menjamin negara-negara anggota ASEAN bahwa pihaknya merupakan tetangga yang bersahabat, bertekad meningkatkan kerja sama dengan ASEAN dan menciptakan kawasan itu damai.

Ketegangan di Laut Tiongkok Selatan sebenarnya tak perlu terjadi jika para pihak berkelakuan sesuai dengan butir-butir dalam "Declaration on the Code of Parties/DoC" tahun 2002 yang dibuat dan disepakati bersama untuk mengelola konflik.

DoC merupakan prestasi yang dicapai para pihak untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan di Laut Tiongkok Selatan menuju perdamaian dan stabilitas di kawasan.

CoC Diperlukan di Kawasan

Karena DoC bersifat tidak mengikat untuk menjamin usaha menahan diri dan implementasi komitmen para pihak, maka negara-negara di kawasan perlu memiliki "Code of Conduct/CoC)" atau Tata Aturan yang mengikat secara hukum.

Belajar dari proses mencapai DoC, tampaknya masuk akal untuk menyimpulkan bahwa proses perampungan CoC tidak akan berjalan mulus jika sesama anggota ASEAN pun masih ada yang saling tidak percaya.

Filipina misalnya membawa kasus ini ke International Court of Justice, Kamboja yang merasa dijelek-jelekkan karena Joint Communique gagal diambil pada masa kepemimpinannya tahun 2012 dan Vietnam yang merasa ASEAN kurang gigih terhadap Tiongkok.

Akan sangat mungkin terjadi negosiasi yang alot di dalam proses penyusunan CoC.

Juga ada sejumlah alasan untuk percaya bahwa suatu dokumen CoC mungkin tidak akan cukup untuk menjaga dan menjamin perdamaian dan stabilitas di Laut Tiongkok Selatan, atau bahkan guna menyelesaikan konflik di Laut Tiongkok Selatan.

Penting untuk diingatkan bahwa merampungkan sebuah CoC yang mengikat secara regional terkait Laut Tiongkok Selatan telah menjadi aspirasi ASEAN sejak awal 1990-an.

Di bulan September 2013, ASEAN dan Tiongkok memulai proses konsultasi tentang CoC dengan mengadakan pertemuan Pejabat Senior yang pertama untuk membahas CoC di Suzhou, Tiongkok.

Meskipun ASEAN tetap berupaya untuk mencapai suatu kesimpulan awal tentang proses CoC, Tiongkok sama sekali tidak terlihat tergesa-gesa di dalam proses penyusunan CoC.

Banyak yang percaya bahwa peran proaktif Tiongkok untuk menyusun CoC akan menguntungkan Tiongkok karena hal tersebut menunjukkan bahwa ASEAN dan Tiongkok dapat bekerja sama untuk menyelesaikan masalah mereka.

Ini akan menjadi jaminan yang paling kuat untuk mencegah campur tangan pihak asing di dalam konflik Laut Tingkat Selatan, seperti yang diharapkan Tiongkok.

Di dalam proses penyusunan CoC, ASEAN dan Tiongkok harus selalu mengingat titik-titik lemah DoC dan menjamin bahwa CoC yang akan disusun itu tidak akan menjumpai masalah yang sama.

"Kalaupun CoC berhasil tersusun, do dan dont dari CoC hanya akan efektif jika para pihak bisa saling menegakkan CoC. Artinya kekompakan itu tidak boleh hanya sesaat, kata Dinna Wisnu PhD," direktur Paramadina Graduate School, Universitas Paramadina,

Tampaknya jalan menuju terbentuknya CoC bersifat evolutif dan berliku.

Di satu sisi ASEAN, harus menunjukkan sebagai "a net contributor" bagi stabilitas dan perdamaian regional, dan di sisi lain Tiongkok harus menujukkan komitmen bagi penyelesaian sengketa dengan damai.

Semakin lama perselisihan Laut Tiongkok Selatan tak terselesaikan maka semakin besar bahaya bagi masa depan ASEAN, Tiongkok, dan kawasan.

 

Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 17:51 )
 

ROARING LION AFRICA NEXT GLOBAL MARKET FRONTIER

E-mail Cetak PDF

By Mohammad Anthoni


Jakarta, Oct 23 (Antara) - Africa's image of being ravaged by famine, civil war, malnutrition, and disease has changed to one of deliberate progress as it has become the next global market frontier, attendees of an Africa Rising seminar noted.

The recent half-day seminar was organized by the embassies of various African countries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia.

All five ambassadors from the African countries of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Sudan in Jakarta spoke about the progress made by Africa.

Also, three Indonesian businessmen, who were invited to the forum, shared their experiences in investing in some African countries.

Deputy Foreign Minister Dino Patti Djalal noted in his opening address at the seminar that Indonesia and the African countries were evolving.

"If you look at Africa and Indonesia today, we are not the same as we were 50 or 60 years ago. Africa has changed, just as Indonesia has," Dino pointed out.

Zimbabwean Ambassador to Indonesia Alice Mageza, South African Ambassador Pakamisa Augustine Sifuba, Nigerian Ambassador Mohammad Lawal Sulaiman, Tunisian Ambassador Mourad Belhassen, and Sudanese Ambassador Abdurrahim El Siddig, respectively gave their presentations and views during the seminar.

Ambassador Mageza recalled the media stereotyping Africa as the "hopeless continent."
"I could understand such a label that the media recently published an article titled 'Africa Rising: a hopeful continent'," she remarked.

The Economist and TIME magazine have both published articles in the last two years titled "Africa Rising" replete with positive economic statistics and images of children flying rainbow kites in the shape of the African continent.

Many of the fastest-growing economies in the world are in Africa. Six of the world's 10 fastest-growing economies between 2001 and 2010 were in Africa, according to The Economist.

The International Monetary Fund revealed that during the period between 2011 and 2015, African countries will occupy seven of the top 10 spots.

"One of the biggest transformations in Africa over the past 10 years has been the widespread achievements of political, economic and social stability across the continent," Ambassador El Siddig noted in his statement.

According to him, this has created conducive conditions for not only high, but also resilient growth. While pockets of instability and strife still exist, these are isolated and contained.

"Overall, African governments have made progress in managing inflation, strengthening national budgets, and tightening security," the ambassador remarked.

He also pointed out that these changes have propelled Africa to become one of the world's fastest-growing and most promising frontier markets today.

The continent's gross domestic product (GDP) is projected to annually grow more than 5 percent on average, higher than the expected global growth rate of 3.6 percent.  
The International Monetary Fund has forecast that seven of the world's 10 fastest-growing economies will be in Africa. East Africa recorded the fastest growth, above 6 percent. Low-income countries also recorded growth of above 6 percent.

These are expected to expand by more than 6 percent every year until 2015 alongside economic giants such as China and India. With growth in the G7 and BRICS slowing, frontier markets-many of which are in Africa-offer higher returns.

External financial flows are expected to surpass US$200 billion in 2014, four times the value recorded in 2000. Foreign investment-direct and portfolio- has now fully recovered from the effects of the crisis and is projected to reach a record US$80 billion in 2014, with manufacturing and services attracting an increasing share of the continent's projects.

The poverty levels are falling and education and health outcomes are improving. Yet important challenges remain. Among these, social exclusion, income inequality, and vulnerability to economic, social, and environmental risks continue to threaten Africa's long-term aspirations to emerge as a people-centric and prosperous continent.  
For Indonesia, Africa offers vast opportunities for its services sectors to migrate to a new non-traditional market and flourish where the sky is the limit in all works of life: food security, energy, mining, agribusiness and others, Ambassador El Siddig emphasized.

Unlike China or India, Indonesia is not a large importer of Africa's natural resources or commodities, but Indonesia earlier exported several of its commodities to Africa, especially to East African countries such as Sudan, Kenya, and Ethiopia.

"Here, we need to strike a kind of a balance in this regard as it is always in favor of Indonesia," he stated.

The continent also offers tremendous opportunities for Indonesian Small and Medium Enterprises by collaborating with the local enterprises. There is an opportunity for Indonesia to become a cargo hub for Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific as a whole, as the cargo volumes between Africa and the Asia-Pacific grew by 17 percent.

"I want to say that Africa is not only rising but also a 'Roaring Lion' in this century," noted Ambassador Mageza, who is also the dean of the group of African ambassadors and has been in Indonesia for a decade. END

Because of the multitude of essays that has to be graded, plenty of teachers acknowledge how they skim understand essays for getting a thought if a person is capable in the content and in what way effectively they provide followed the style steps . Hence, it is a good idea to building your essay so your key points are recognizable when write my essay skim checking and are generally crystal-clear sufficiently to have the communication throughout.

cialis super activecialis super active tadalafil 20mgcialis super active 20mg pillscialis super active testimonialscialis super active 20 mgcialis super active ukcialis super active vs regular cialis

Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 17:52 )
 

Palestina, Timur Tengah, dan Tanggung Jawab Indonesia: Menyongsong Kemerdekaan Palestina

E-mail Cetak PDF

Oleh: Muhammad Najib


Sejak runtuhnya Kesultanan Turki Usmani 1923 yang mengontrol seluruh Timur Tengah,  pengendalian Palestina beralih sepenuhnya ke tangan Inggris. Gerakan Zionis yang lama berjuang menemukan pintu masuk sejalan dengan desain Barat pasca Perang Dunia Pertama yang ingin memecah-belah Timur Tengah dan menancapkan duri di dalamnya secara permanen.
Atas restu Inggris ditandai dengan Deklarasi Balfour tahun 1917 dan Bantuan Barat,  orang-orang Yahudi dari seluruh penjuru dunia terutama yang merasa tidak aman dan tidak nyaman hidup di negaranya kemudian berduyun-duyun pindah ke wilayah yang dikenal selama berabad-abad dengan nama Palestina. Saat dideklarasikannya Negara Israel di atas Tanah Palestina  tahun 1948, jumlah penduduk Yahudi sudah mencapai 30%  di antara 1,37  Juta penduduk yang bermukim di wilyah Palestina, padahal semula hanya 10  % dari total penduduk yang berjumlah 752.048 saat Inggris pertama kali menginjakkan kakinya.
Perang Arab-Israel tahun 1967 bukan hanya memperluas wilyah Israel di Palestina, bahkan sampai mengambil Sinai dari Mesir, Golan dari Suriah dan Shebaa dari Lebanon. Hanya Mesir yang berhasil mengambil kembali wilayahnya melalui usahanya lewat Perang Arab-Israel tahun 1973 kemudian dilanjutkan dengan Perjanjian Camp David, sementara Wilayah Suriah dan Lebanon masih diduduki Israel sampai kini meskipun mereka juga ikut terlibat dalam perang bersama Mesir dan tidak pernah berhenti melakukan upaya politik atau diplomasi.
Kegagalan gabungan negara-negara Arab terutama Mesir, Suriah, Jordania dan Lebanon yang menjadi front terdepan mengambil kembali Palestina dari Israel melalui perang, kemudian mendorong bangsa Palestina  sendiri untuk membebaskan tanah airnya  dari penjajah Israel, sementara negara-negara Arab lain yang semula berada di depan kemudian hanya memberikan dukungan dari belakang.
Semula bangsa Palestina berjuang dengan senjata dengan tokoh utamanya Yaser Arafat, setelah berkali-kali terjadi pertempuran sporadis dan berkali-kali pula terusir sehingga harus memindahkan markasnya dari satu negara Arab ke negara Arab lain. Mereka kemudian membentuk pemerintahan di pengasingan dengan bendera PLO lengkap dengan anggota Parlemennya, sampai ditandatanganinya  Perjanjian Oslo pada tahun   1993    yang memberikan jalan bagi Yaser Arafat dan kawan-kawan  kembali ke tanah kelahirannya dan membentuk pemerintahan dengan kekuasaan sangat terbatas meliputi wilayah Tepi Barat dan Gaza yang dikenal dengan Otoritas Palestina dengan Ibukota sementara di Ramalah.
Kemerdekaan penuh sesuai  Perjanjian Oslo tidak kunjung terwujud disebabkan Israel terus menunda-nunda realisasi kesepakatan final, sementara dalam waktu yang bersamaan terus-menerus menggerus wilayah Palestina dengan cara membangun permukiman bagi orang-orang Yahudi lengkap dengan fasilitas umum dan infrastrukturnya. Kekecewaan, frustasi bahkan perasaan dikhianati mengakibatkan meredupnya Fatah sebagai organisasi atau partai politik utama dalam PLO, kemudian memunculkan gerakan-gerakan baru garis keras terutama HAMMAS yang kembali memilih menggunakan senjata untuk membebaskan tanah airnya.
Isu negara Yahudi yang kini didengungkan Perdana Mentri Benyamin Netanyahu menjadi semacam deklarasi praktek apartheid Pemerintah Israel yang  sudah lama dilakukan, sehingga menempatkan penduduk non Yahudi seperti Muslim dan Nasrani sebagai warga kelas dua.  Pembangunan dinding yang menjepit dan mengisolasi pemukiman-pemukiman Palestina di Tepi Barat dan blokade Gaza, semakin meningkatkan simpati warga Palestina kepada HAMMAS. Sementara dunia Arab sejak Arab Spring semakin terpecah belah dalam pergolakan perebutan kekuasaan baik secara terbuka bahkan dengan menggunakan senjata, atau secara halus dan tertutup menghabiskan perhatian dan energi mereka untuk urusan internal masing-masing. Kombinasi antara situasi dalam negri dan regional ini mendorong kompromi antarfaksi Palestina, terutama antara Fatah dan HAMMAS untuk bersatu hingga terbentuknya Pemerintahan Persatuan yang selama puluhan tahun tidak pernah terjadi.
Bagi Israel Persatuan ini menjadi mimpi buruk yang sangat merisaukannya, karena Israel secara konsisten dan menguras seluruh energinya untuk memecah belah faksi-faksi Palestina sebagai bagian dari strategi untuk melemahkan perjuangan mereka, sebagaimana Israel memecah-belah negara-negara Arab secara konsisten.  Bagi kelompok garis keras Israel yang kini sedang berkuasa, wilayah Israel yang diinginkannya melingkupi seluruh tanah Kanaan termasuk Tepi Barat dan Gaza. Kini Israel sudah menguasai 85 persen wilayah Palestina.
Walaupun tidak pernah dikatakan, tampaknya Israel telah mengubur  Perjanjian Damai yang pernah ditandatanganinya di Oslo. Kelompok ini menggunakan teror fisik maupun non fisik secara maksimal yang konsekwensinya terabaikannya apa yang disebut Hak Asasi Manusia. Dengan alasan menjaga keamanannya, Israel merasa boleh melakukan apa saja terhadap orang Palestina. Akibatnya kebrutalan terjadi secara terus-menerus, penyiksaan dan pembunuhan tak peduli apakah mereka anak-anak, perempuan ataupun orang tua. Begitu juga penghancuran rumah, masjid, rumah sakit atau sekolah dapat terjadi setiap saat tanpa alasan yang jelas atau alasan yang diacritics-cari.
Munculnya Aljazeera sebagai media berita dunia mengimbangi bahkan mengalahkan CNN dan BBC yang selama ini membentuk opini masyarakat dunia, memberikan keuntungan tersendiri bagi perjuangan Kemerdekaan Bangsa Palestina. Bahkan menjadi senjata paling ampuh melampaui senjata militer, politik maupun ekonomi. Penderitaan mereka kini tidak mampu lagi disembunyikan, pelanggaran HAM yang dilakukan secara terus-menerus oleh warga Yahudi dan para penguasa Israel selama puluhan tahun kini dipertontonkan ke rumah-rumah setiap warga dunia melalui TV selama dua puluh empat jam. Kemanusiaan yang terusik, kemudian dikomunikasikan melalui social media yang semuanya secara bertahap menambah simpati  pada Palestina, sebaliknya menggerus dukungan terhadap Israel yang selama ini dinikmatinya. Kini semakin brutal Israel semakin keras kecaman yang diterimanya, walau dengan alasan tertentu sejumlah penguasa tetap saja membela Israel secara membabi-buta. Penguasa-penguasa seperti ini lambat-laun berhadapan dengan rakyatnya sendiri. Inilah alasan Kemerdekaan Palestina sudah semakin dekat dan tidak bisa dibendung lagi.
Mendukung Palestina berarti merebut simpati bangsa Arab secara keseluruhan, walaupun mungkin sejumlah penguasa di Timur Tengah dengan alasan tertentu terkadang tidak membela Palestina, tetapi seluruh Rakyat Arab dan mayoritas warga dunia membela Palestina. Konsistensi Pemerintah dan Rakyat Indonesia mendukung perjuangan Bangsa Palestina dalam meraih kemerdekaannya dapat dilihat sebagai sebuah investiasi politik dan penegakkan HAM di pentas global. 
Dinamika Politik Timur Tengah Keberhasilan koalisi Inggris dan Perancis  meruntuhkan Kesultanan  Turki Usmani Pasca Perang Dunia Pertama tidak bisa dilepaskan dari dukungan Bangsa Arab. Kesediaan Bangsa Arab mendukung ini tidak bisa dilepaskan dari janji bahwa mereka akan dibebaskan atau dimerdekakan. Kenyataannya kemudian wilayah mereka dikapling-kapling dan dibagi dengan penguasa baru antara Inggris dan Perancis.  Hanya beberapa wilayah Arab miskin dan tidak menarik pada waktu itu yang dilepas kemudian memproklamasikan kemerdekaannya, sementara sisanya harus berjuang kembali.
Perang Dunia Kedua melahirkan dua super power baru, yakni Amerika dengan kapitalismenya dan Rusia dengan komunismenya yang kemudian berebut pengaruh di tingkat global termasuk di kawasan Timur Tengah. Negara-negara Arab terpecah, sebagian berafiliasi ke Barat pimpinan Amerika, sementara sebagian berkiblat ke Timur pimpinan Rusia. Organisasi-organisasi perjuangan Palestina lebih memilih Rusia disebabkan Israel didukung tanpa batas baik secara ekonomi, politik maupun militer oleh Amerika dan sekutunya. Keunggulan ekonomi, politik dan militer Amerika atas Rusia berimplikasi pada keunggulan Israel atas negara-negara Arab termasuk Palestina. Situasi ini memaksa para pejuang Palestina di bawah kepemimpinan Yaser Arafat menoleh ke Barat dan berusaha mengubah strategi perjuangannya yang kemudian bermuara pada Perjanjian Damai Oslo. Ada dua hal penting dalam Perjanjian Oslo; Pertama, Palestina mengakui eksistensi Negara Israel, dan Kedua, kesediaan Palestina untuk berbagi wilayah yang kemudian lebih dikenal dengan istilah Two State Solution.
Sejak ditandatanganinya Perjanjian Oslo 1993 sampai meninggalnya Arafat tahun 2004,  kemerdekaan penuh Palestina tidak kunjung menjadi kenyataan, bahkan semakin hari semakin banyak tanah Palestina yang diklaim dan dimasukkan ke dalam wilayah Israel.
Sementara negara-negara Arab terus-menerus bertikai satu sama lainnya dengan alasan yang berubah-ubah, aliansi antara negara Arab juga tergantung situasi dan kondisi.
Arab Spring sempat menerbitkan harapan munculnya era demokratisasi dan kebebasan menyatakan pendapat serta partisipasi dalam urusan pemerintah dan negara di dunia Arab. Banyak pengamat yang meyakini demokratisasi kawasan Timur Tengah akan menjadi awal kebangkitan kembali Bangsa Arab untuk meraih kembali masa kejayaannya yang lama hilang. Bangsa Arab pernah mencapai masa keemasannya dimulai dari era Khlifahurasyidin, lalu dilanjutkan dengan  pemerintahan di bawah Dinasti Umayyah kemudian Dinasti Abbasyiyah. Bahkan sebagian pengamat menggunakan istilah Super Power untuk mengambarkan kekuatan politik,, militer, dan ekonominya, serta kemajuan ilmu pengetahuan, teknologi, seni dan budayanya. Tapi kenyataannya kini bahkan membuat mereka semakin terbenam karena dominannya kebanggaan dan menonjolnya  kabilah-kabilah yang berebut kekuasaan bagai kembali ke masa jahiliah.
Tanggung Jawab dan Posisi Indonesia Sesuai Mukadimah UUD 1945 yang berbunyi: "Bahwa sesungguhnya kemerdekaan itu ialah hak segala bangsa dan oleh sebab itu, maka penjajahan diatas dunia harus dihapuskan karena tidak sesuai dengan perikemanusiaan dan perikeadilan." Inilah yang menjadi landasan yuridis sekaligus spirit rakyat Indonesia membela Palestina secara konsisten serta enggan mengakui Israel sampai berdirinya Negara Palestina yang merdeka dan berdaulat secara penuh sebagaimana negara pada umumnya.
Ketegasan dan keteguhan sikap ini tidak bisa dilepaskan dengan peran Mesir dan sejumlah negara Arab termasuk Palestina yang memberikan dukungan perjuangan Bangsa Indonesia, kemudian pertamakali mengakui kemerdekaan Indonesia.
Bagi Indonesia, Zionisme dipandang sebagai sebuah gerakan politik murni yang bertujuan mendirikan sebuah negara baru di wilayah Palestina yang tidak ubahnya sebagai penjajahan. Kehadiran Israel kemudian mengganggu kedamaian dan keharmonisan antarkelompok penganut agama Islam, Nasrani dan Yahudi yang hidup berdampingan selama ratusan tahun di Tanah Palestina. Apalagi sejak berdirinya Pemerintahan Israel praktek aparthed di seluruh aspek kehidupan kemudian menempatkan penganut Islam dan Nasrani sebagai warga kelas dua.
Indonesia di bawah Presiden Soekarno selalu bersikap aktif dan sering mengambil inisiatif dalam membantu banyak negara terutama yang berada di kawasan Asia dan Afrika untuk memperoleh kemerdekaannya. Salah satu peristiwa yang dicatat sejarah  dan banyak dikenang oleh bangsa- bangsa lain adalah Konferensi Asia Afrika yang diadakan di Bandung. Dari delegasi yang hadir saat itu, kini semuanya sudah merdeka kecuali Palestina. Sikap politik Bung Karno kemudian diikuti oleh para presiden RI berikutnya, walau mungkin gaya diplomasi yang dipilihnya tidak seheroik Presiden RI Pertama.
Peristiwa September 11 yang meluluhlantakkan Gedung Kembar World Trade Center di New York, AS,  menandai pola baru hubungan negara-negara Arab dengan Barat terutama di bidang ekonomi. Negara-negara Arab kaya saat itu merasa tidak nyaman dan tidak aman lagi menyimpan properti mereka di Barat, sehingga mereka menarik uang mereka dari bank-bank di New York, London, Paris dan pusat-pusat keuangan lain untuk dipindah ke Dubai, Doha, dan Abu Dhabi. Kota-kota ini kemudian tumbuh secara mencengangkan dan menjadi pusat-pusat pertumbuhan baru.
Sayangnya potensi alamiahnya terbatas, sehingga walaupun menimbulkan geliat ekonomi yang luar biasa, tidak seluruh dana yang dimilikinya tumbuh secara optimal. Para emir kaya penguasa negara-negara Teluk ini kemudian melirik negara-negara Asia dan Afrika sebagai tujuan investasinya. China, Jepang, Korsel dan India kemudian menjadi tujuan utama. Di kawasan ASEAN  Singapura dan Malaysia yang paling pandai dan paling banyak memanfaatkan peluang ini, meskipun banyak indikasi uang itu kemudian diinvestasikan di Indonesia dalam berbagai bentuk. Ironisnya, bahkan Thailand yang lebih pro-Israel lebih banyak menikmati peluang ini dibanding Indonesia. Artinya Indonesia kurang pandai mengkapitalisasi prestasi politiknya menjadi keuntungan dalam bentuk ekonomi. Mengingat uang-uang mereka dikelola oleh para fund manager profesional lulusan Barat, maka pendekatan tradisional yang selama ini banyak diperaktekkan oleh para pejabat dan para pengusaha Indonesia sudah saatnya diubah.
Di Komisi 1 DPR RI banyak sekali gagasan segar yang kini berkembang. Sebagai contoh munculnya pertanyaan terkait kedudukan Duta Besar Indonesia untuk Palestina yang dirangkap oleh Dubes kita di Jordania dan dikendalikan melalui Amman, sementara secara geografis wilayah Gaza lebih dekat dan lebih mudah bila diurus dari Kairo. Atau pertanyaan lain; Apakah isu Palestina yang lebih banyak dibicarakan di New York, London, Paris atau Wina cukup diurus melalui Amman? Apakah tidak lebih baik mengangkat Dubes RI untuk Palestina secara tersendiri dan berkedudukan di Jakarta, sehingga ia lebih leluasa bergerak dan berpartisipasi terhadap berbagai pembicaraan tentang Palestina dimanapun dilakukan.
Apa bila hal ini dilakukan, maka disamping kita bisa berperan lebih aktif di berbagai fora internasional, memberikan dukungan lebih besar dan lebih nyata, dan secara diplomasi pengangkatan Dubes Palestina secara mandiri tanpa rangkapan akan dipandang sebagai sebuah langkah maju dibanding sebelumnya. Bahkan dalam skala yang lebih besar terkait dengan Kementerian Luar Negri juga muncul pertanyaan; Apakah tidak lebih baik jika Kementerian Luar Negri kita dimerger dengan Kementrian Perdagangan sebagaimana Australia atau Jepang. Dengan posisi Menlu sekaligus berperan sebagai Menteri Perdagangan Internasional, maka kita akan lebih bisa mengkapitalisasi prestasi-prestasi atau capaian politik global menjadi buah nyata dalam bidang ekonomi, mengingat begitu banyaknya investasi politik yang telah kita lakukan selama ini. Pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini saya kira perlu menjadi stimulan atau pemicu bagi Pemerintahan baru dalam membentuk format atau arsitektur Pemerintahan ke depan, khususnya terkait kebijakan politik luar negri terkait isu Palestina pada khususnya dan Timur Tengah pada umumnya.
•        Anggota Komisi 1 DPR RI

All the same, no one wants to educate yourself using their company have faults so comprehending the primary dos and don'ts of academic writing sample composing will assist makes practical experience less tense and many more fruitful.

There is absolutely no common web template that might work out any advanced schooling essay problem.

Then again, the subsequent requirements of generating are basic and pertinent to all sorts of scholastic essay, whatever the the school and area:

cialis super active vs cialis professionalcialis super active plus reviewsque es cialis super activecialis super active australiadoes cialis super active workcialis super active funzionawhat is cialis super active

Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 18:05 )
 

Indonesia Is at a Crossroads - Its Future as a Pluralistic Democracy Hangs in the Balance

E-mail Cetak PDF

A nation "at the crossroads" is a well-worn and overused phrase, but it is one that befits Indonesia today.

On 9 July, the world's largest Muslim-majority nation, third largest democracy, fourth most populous nation and south-east Asia's largest economy will elect a new President. The two candidates, Prabowo Subianto and Joko Widodo (known as "Jokowi") represent a very clear and contrasting choice: between the past and the future, a return to authoritarianism or a deepening of democracy, and between the politicisation of religion and the protection and promotion of genuine religious pluralism.

Over the past fifteen years Indonesia has made a remarkable transition from dictatorship to democracy and chaos to stability. As the world's largest Muslim-majority nation, it has a great tradition of religious pluralism, enshrined in its founding state philosophy, the 'Pancasila'. Rising religious intolerance in the past ten years has put these achievements in jeopardy, and the failures of the incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono have fuelled this, but the forthcoming election represents a crucial test. The choice presents an opportunity to say yes to pluralism, or to continue further down the road of intolerance.

Prabowo, an ex-General and the son-in-law of former dictator Suharto, has tried to conjure up the image of the nation's founding father, Sukarno during his campaign. This nationalist fervour has some appeal, as does his strongman image. One Indonesian taxi driver told me recently that he would vote for Prabowo, because he would stop terrorists. "Under Suharto, we had no terrorist problem. Now we have a lot of terrorists," he said. He is probably right - Prabowo may well deal toughly with terrorists, though one has to ask whether his own blood-stained hands the best ones to protect the country. His recent campaign music video evoking Nazi imagery, and his comments to journalist Allan Nairn about fascism offer a frightening preview of how he might conduct himself in office.

Prabowo is certainly no religious extremist. On the surface, his pluralist credentials are strong. His mother and brother are Christians, and his rhetorical defence of the 'Pancasila', Indonesia's founding state philosophy which protects religious diversity, harks back to the Suharto and Sukarno eras in which secular nationalism trumped Islamist extremism.

However, the coalition supporting him will not make it easy to protect Indonesia's tradition of pluralism and religious tolerance. Hardline Islamist political parties will want a share of power in exchange for the support they have provided, and doing a deal with the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) is more likely to empower and embolden them rather than rein them in. The FPI, a violent vigilante mob known for forcing the closure of churches and attacking the mosques of the Ahmadiyya, a Muslim sect labelled "heretical" by other Muslims, should be sidelined, not given a political platform.

Moreover, Prabowo's election manifesto pledged to "purify religion" - a chilling proposal which, despite his brother Hashim Djojohadikusomo's claims of withdrawal, should serve as a warning of what may follow. His camp's continuous dirty tricks campaign against his opponent, which includes questioning Jokowi's Islamic faith and Javanese ethnicity, shows that Prabowo cares more about winning than he does about protecting what Indonesia stands for.

In addition to support from hardline Islamists, Prabowo has surprisingly won support from some Christian groups. While the Catholic Church and the mainline Communion of Churches of Indonesia (PGI) have carefully stayed neutral, though privately express concerns about Prabowo, the Pentecostal Church declared its support for him. This is unusual in itself, for churches rarely make a collective decision in an election, and are better advised to allow their adherents the freedom to make their own choices. But it is even more surprising, given the Islamist nature of Prabowo's bedfellows. He has built an unholy alliance of religious extremists, bringing together radical Islamists with fundamentalist Christians - a marriage made in hell, leaving moderates and pluralists from all religions on the sidelines.

As if these were not enough to cause concern, persistent allegations of grave human rights violations perpetrated by Prabowo while in the military should give Indonesians pause for thought. That his "excesses" have even been criticised by other Generals, themselves no paragons of virtue, is revealing. Claims by his former superiors that Prabowo acted alone in arranging the kidnapping of activists in the Suharto era and was discharged from the military for acting without orders should concern everyone.

Jokowi, on the other hand, has a proven record as Governor of Jakarta and previously Mayor of Solo for defending pluralism. Churches in Jakarta which faced threats from the FPI received police protection from the Governor. Jokowi dismissed those protesting against the appointment of a Christian as a sub-district head, saying people should be appointed on merit alone. Indeed, his own Vice-Governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (known as Ahok), is a Chinese Christian, making the pair a symbol of the Pancasila. Reports that he would scrap the religion column on identity cards have been denied by his camp, but it is likely that the denial comes from a concern to shore up his Islamic credentials, under fire from Prabowo's dirty tricks.

Jokowi's coalition is not perfect. Among his supporters is General Wiranto, famous for singing karaoke in 1999 while East Timor burned. A few Islamic parties have gone Jokowi's way too. But overall, he himself has no ties to the military, faces no human rights charges and is not beholden to hardline Islamists - three characteristics that distinguish him from his opponent.

Many have drawn comparisons between Jokowi and Obama. Like Obama he has risen fast, coming to national attention only two years ago upon election as Governor of Jakarta. Like Obama, he represents change, his background is in local community politics and he inspires a hope among his supporters that is unparalleled. He even bears a physical resemblance to the US President, and has chosen as his running mate the experienced former Vice-President Jusuf Kalla, who may perhaps be to Jokowi what Joseph Biden is to Obama, matching youth and vision with age and experience.

The election feels similar to Obama-McCain in 2008. To compare Prabowo to John McCain would be stretching the analogy way too far. It would also be a gross insult to Senator McCain, a distinguished war veteran with an exemplary record for speaking up for human rights. But there are some similarities. The military link is one. The decision to rope in hardline conservative elements to shore up the base is another, at the expense of the candidate's own beliefs. The Islamist parties and the FPI could be to Prabowo what Sarah Palin and the Tea Party were to McCain. In addition, both men are well known for having fiery, even uncontrollable tempers.

It is not for me, as a foreigner, to tell Indonesians how to vote on 9 July. The choice of President is one for the people of Indonesia to make. But, if I were an Indonesian, it's clear where my sympathies would lie. And it is legitimate to urge Indonesians to ask some tough questions. Do they want to look to the future, or hark back to a by-gone era of authoritarianism? Do they want to strengthen Indonesia's democracy, or undermine it? Do they wish to defend Indonesia's tradition of pluralism and tackle intolerance, or give the voices of intolerance a stronger platform in government? And is a man with blood on his hands and radical Islamists at his side, widely described even by his friends as "psychologically flawed" and a "megalomaniac", best placed to take Indonesia forward? On these questions hang Indonesia's fate. Its future hangs in the balance.what is cialis super active pluscialis super active kaufenwhat is generic cialis super activecialis super active pricecialis super active europecialis super active purchasecialis super active erfahrung

 

 

Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ben/indonesia-democracy_b_5536207.html

Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 18:05 )
 

Indonesia: Foreign Policy Under Jokowi and Prabowo

E-mail Cetak PDF

The emergence of Jakarta Governor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and former special forces general Prabowo Subianto as two Indonesian presidential candidates has prompted widespread discussion about how both candidates differ from each other. What foreign policy changes should be anticipated from the upcoming leadership?

A good start to understanding the candidates’ foreign policies is to look at the policy platforms they submitted to the Election Commission a few days ago. In his 42-page document, Jokowi outlines a well-structured foreign policy vision in around 500 words. He details four foreign policy priorities: (1) promoting the “archipelagic state” concept as the Indonesia’s main foreign policy identity, which emphasizes the need for solving its territorial dispute by peaceful means; (2) carrying out “middlepowermanship” through active participation in various international forums; (3) expanding the regionalism project by strengthening the Indo-Pacific regional architecture; and (4) widening the public outreach on foreign policymaking. Prabowo on the other hand, explains his foreign policy in three brief sentences: (1) maintaining the Indonesia’s Bebas Aktif (Free and Active) principle; (2) making a more active effort to deal with global climate change; and (3) protecting the rights of Indonesian migrant workers.

Jokowi’s detailed and structured foreign policy might come from his competent international relations advisors. One of his most prominent confidants is Dr. Rizal Sukma, the executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Sukma, along with two or three other candidates among career diplomats, should be closely watched as a leading candidate to be the next foreign minister. In addition to his strong academic background, Sukma’s position as a member of the central executive board of Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s second largest Muslim organization, which could make him a “representative” of more puritan Muslim population.

Prabowo also has some leading international relations experts on his campaign team, such as Harvard graduate and the National Mandate Party’s head of foreign relations Bara Hasibuan. That said, Prabowo’s less detailed foreign policy platform could be a reflection of the difficulty he has reconciling differences between his nationalistic rhetoric and other parties’ diverse foreign policy orientations. During the recent legislative elections, Prabowo’s party Gerindra consistently advocated for more “self-reliant” stances. After establishing a formal alliance with four Islamic political parties, Prabowo has to deal with aspirations for a more “Islamic foreign policy.” Even more complex, he must wed his self-reliance rhetoric with his running mate Hatta Rajasa’s public perception as a neoliberal policymaker, reflecting his endorsement of a fuel subsidy reduction when he was an economic minister.

Of course, making a foreign policy comparison based only on vague glimpses of campaign platforms would be incautious. Nevertheless, these political platforms do offer hints at the conduct of foreign policy. The success of the new president’s foreign policy will depend heavily on his ability to work with foreign policy actors and solve complex interagency coordination issues. Jokowi likely prefers bottom-up foreign policymaking, gathering as much as information from his advisors as he can before choosing a policy path, making his policy rich with careful consideration. Jokowi is not as internationalist as Yudhoyono, but his competent advisors are his strong point. Prabowo, on the other hand, is more instructive and decisive, but less interested in detail. For the detail, Prabowo will let foreign ministry officials take whatever actions and strategies needed, as long as they are in line with his grand policy. This will result in a high degree of foreign policy cohesiveness within the executive government, but on the other hand could lead to confusion among the diplomatic corps in finding the best detailed items to match with his policy outline.

Despite these somewhat contradictory leadership and managerial styles, whoever the president is, there will in general be more continuity than ideological and substantial foreign policy change for the next five years. This is not entirely because Indonesia lacks the resources to pursue radical transformation, as some observers have argued, but because of the long-standing nature of Indonesian politics, which always emphasizes the importance of finding “consensus.” As with his predecessors, including the incumbent Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the next president will prefer to satisfy demands from diverse foreign policy interests at home by choosing a “middle way.” Whoever wins, the government will be a coalition of five or six political parties in which each has diverse foreign policy aspirations, forcing the upcoming president to take a middle-ground strategy toward diplomacy. In dealing with the South China Sea dispute for instance, Indonesia will not follow either the Philippines’ path of aligning with the United States or Cambodia’s choice of close relations with China. Instead, the next leader will still emphasize the need for ASEAN cohesiveness and at the same time advocate peaceful management of the conflict.

The new president will inherit Yudhoyono’s strong legacy of active involvement in a broad range of issues and forums. There will be some new initiatives, especially related to demand for a more active global role as a result of Indonesia’s increasing economic weight. Nonetheless, Indonesia’s foreign policy direction will likely follow current practices, which are based on three pillars: (1) using ASEAN as its foreign policy cornerstone; (2) exploiting its soft power advantages, such as compatibility between Islam and democracy; and (3) giving economic diplomacy a growing priority.

A clearer picture of the new president’s approach to foreign policy will begin to emerge shortly after his inauguration on October 20 this year. An early test will be the ASEAN Summit from November 10-12 in Myanmar, where the Indonesian president will be expected by other ASEAN leaders to provide clear and firm leadership on difficult issues, such as growing tensions in the South China Sea, ongoing turmoil in Thailand, and widespread pessimism toward the ASEAN Economic Community scheduled to be created in 2015. A few days later, the president will attend the G20 Summit in Brisbane. Aside from the G-20 issues themselves, the visit to Australia will be watched with interest by the people of both nations for any gesture in handling the deterioration in bilateral relations that has come in the wake of last year’s spy scandal.

Nationalist rhetoric offered by the candidates on the campaign trail should not automatically be construed as auguring an inward-looking Indonesia. As is the case around the globe, the Indonesian election is always about domestic politics. Once a candidate takes power, there will be a tendency to tone down the grand pronouncements and turn to pragmatism.

Awidya Santikajaya is a PhD candidate at the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy, the Australian National University. He also runs a blog called The Indonesianists.

 

cialis super active descriptioncialis super active plus 20 mgcialis super active canadacialis super active prezzocialis super active 20mg aviscialis super active sverigecialis super active cheap online

source : http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/indonesia-foreign-policy-under-jokowi-and-prabowo/

Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 17:23 )
 

AEC 2015 and beyond: Benchmarking on the EU integration

E-mail Cetak PDF

 

LET me start by saying the world was a very different place in 1950 when the European integration process started. It was a different place both in economic and geopolitical terms. Both the economic and the geopolitical differences are crucial why European integration took the supranational form that it did.
In 1950 the world was just emerging from four appalling decades which has seen two world wars and the Great Depression. All three catastrophes led to widespread restrictions on trade. As a result, the post-war world economy was highly fragmented and characterized by unconvertible currencies, high tariffs, and widespread quotas. Regional trade agreements were, therefore, a desirable option for export-oriented economies.
In contrast, the world economy today is highly globalized. Since Asian export sectors already have access to global markets, they do not have the same interest in regional trade agreements. As in postwar Europe, Asian growth strategies have been based on exports, but Asian tigers have always been able to export to Western markets, which have been relatively open.
Geopolitics is also important. The US strongly encouraged postwar European integration; even though regional trade arrangements in Europe imposed direct economic cost on the US, it was willing to pay that price in order to advance European political integration. European free-trade areas that did not involve supranational political elements offered economic costs with no corresponding political benefits; the US was, therefore, hostile to organizations such as the European Free Trade Association while remaining strongly supportive of the European Economic Community. In this context, it is useful to compare that the initial steps to create Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) were based on the fear of the expansionary moves of the Republic of China. Decades later, China is trying it again in the South China Sea, which politically puts pressure on Asean to take a joint stand against China.
Comparing what the European Union looks like today with Asean Economic Community to be, here are the differences:

System

Asean

EU

Mandate

Strictly intergovernmental

Hybrid supra-national/intergovernmental

Parliament

No parliament

Elected parliament

Judicial

No Asean law

EU law of higher order than national law

Political

Myriad political systems

Democracy a prerequisite for entry

Monetary

No plan for monetary union

Single monetary union/Euro zone

Economic

Economic Community 2015

One common market

Enforcement

Non-enforceable agreements

Enforceable agreements

In other words, enormous differences in the two systems and consequently we will have to have different expectations. At the same time, however, the EU has changed enormously from the beginnings in the 1950s to where it is today.

But we have to be realistic also that an Asean Secretariat with limited powers, limited funds, limited people cannot do the integration process alone. In my view, business has to be the driver to get things going; business is going to benefit most; business has to see to it that the governments are opening the doors and are enablers, looking at inclusive growth, job generation and the elimination of poverty.

In the end, it is about building a more integrated Asean Region, free from poverty and conflict, prosperous and confident, and well equipped to shape its destiny.
Source : http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/en/business/asean-economic-community/33227-aec-2015-and-beyond-benchmarking-on-the-eu-integration
Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 17:24 )
 

Thailand’s Coup – Will ASEAN Answer?

E-mail Cetak PDF

Image Credit: ASEAN flags via Shutterstock.com

 

Recent weeks have brought forth a slew of unfortunate developments for the “land of smiles,” as Thailand likes to brand itself. Political turmoil – first in the form of a half-coup on May 20, when General Prayuth Chan-ocha declared martial law, and then finally the full seizure of power by the army on May 22 – has led to some alarming developments. These events should be of special concern to Thailand’s Southeast Asian neighbors, with which Thailand forms the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Thailand is one of the most active and central players in ASEAN, representing Southeast Asia’s second biggest economy. This coup is far from uncommon news for Thailand. In fact, it constitutes the twelfth effective coup d’état in Thailand since 1932, besides seven other attempts. The pattern of political instability that Thailand has shown over the last couple of years seems almost continuous, and one could argue that the country’s regional neighbors are  somehow used to these ups and downs in the Thai political landscape. However, the fact that the very popular, and in the past conciliatory, King Bhumibol Adulyadej seems to have stayed out of the game this time makes this coup special, with the route back to stability and democracy much more uncertain.

Why should we expect any ASEAN comment at all though, since ASEAN prefers to stress the policy of non-interference and a hands-off approach concerning member states’ domestic issues? The answer is that the non-interference norm has lately seen some recalibration. Domestic issues that have regional implications, or the potential to threaten regional stability and security, are no longer taboo. Instead, facing comments by other ASEAN members might be tolerable or acceptable. One prominent example was the ASEAN response to cyclone Nargis in 2008 in Myanmar.

Concerning Thailand, the ASEAN Heads of State and Government issued an official statement on December 14, 2013, calling “on all parties concerned to resolve the current situation through dialogue and consultations in a peaceful and democratic manner.” Although the statement could be interpreted as pro-government, it nonetheless stands out as a noticeable peak in ASEAN’s cherished principle of non-interference with the internal affairs of its member states. With the army’s seizure of power, the situation in Thailand has not been solved through dialogue, consultations or in a democratic manner. ASEAN should thus follow-up its December statement, especially because it’s expressions of democracy are also backed by principles in the 2008 ASEAN Charter. In this document, the organization subscribed to the ideas of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Certainly, critics of the association have denounced the gap between ASEAN’s identity on paper, and its actions when faced with real situations. The question for ASEAN therefore, is whether it wants to live up to its self-ascribed standards, or continue to just pay lip-service.

Indonesia, nowadays often described as the custodian of human rights and democracy in ASEAN, has already taken an active line. On May 22, the Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said: “Without meaning to intervene in the domestic affairs of Thailand… the development of the situation [there] should be a concern of Indonesia, together with the Asean.” Another factor in ASEAN’s view of the situation should be that Myanmar, a direct neighbor of Thailand, has just turned toward democracy. ASEAN countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines, traditionally the most supportive of pro-democracy developments within ASEAN, might also have a strong interest in Thailand going back toward democracy as soon as possible, so as not threaten the new and still fragile developments in Myanmar.

Regionally and internationally, the human rights situation and the further deterioration of Thai democracy were viewed with concern. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay expressed her deepest concern about the situation in Thailand. Several other non-governmental, regional and international organizations like the EU, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), have strongly condemned the military’s seizure of power. The situation on May 20, when the army launched its “half-coup,” did not justify the imposition of martial law, which severely restricted human rights, civil liberties and media freedom. Considering these developments, it will be interesting to observe whether an ASEAN voice will also be heard in the current discussion of the “Thai fight.”

Kerstin Radtke is a Research Assistant at the University of Konstanz, Germany.

 

source: http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/thailands-coup-will-asean-answer/

Terakhir Diperbaharui ( Kamis, 15 Juni 2017 17:24 )
 
JPAGE_CURRENT_OF_TOTAL

Ruang Sevila Toledo

Ruang Kelas

Ruang Diskusi

Auditorium

library 3

library 2

library

JEvents Calendar

September 2017
S M T W T F S
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Permintaan Brosur

Permintaan Brosur S2

Nama Lengkap *
Email *
No. HP *
Alamat Rumah *
Indonesian (ID)