• Home
  • About
  • International Relations
    • Journal Articles
    • Books
  • Journalism
    • Karya Jurnalistik
  • Commentary
  • Lecture
    • Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia
    • Pengantar Hubungan Internasional
    • Bahasa Inggris Diplomasi
  • Academic Profile

Jurnal Asep Setiawan

Jurnal Asep Setiawan

Tag Archives: asia tenggara

Abu Sayyaf dalam Aksi di Asia Tenggara

01 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Setiawan in Commentary, Global Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abu Sayyaf, asia tenggara, politik

Sejak terjadi penyenderaan terhadap warga Indonesia khususnya 10 orang yang kemudian bertambah menjadi 14 orang, maka lanskap politik kawasan di Asia Tenggara telah berubah. Kelompok Abu Sayyaf yang berbasis di Filipina Selatan menjadi salah satu aktor non negara yang memainkan peran lebih besar di kawasan ini. Tidak hanya karena drama penculikan – yang berarti menguasai jalur laut penting – tetapi taktik penyanderaan yang menimbulkan tanda tanya.

Hari Minggu (1 Mei 2016) Abu Sayyaf dilaporkan membebaskan 10 sandera WNI. Jadi tinggal empat yang masih menjadi sandera.

Seorang sandera Kanada baru saja dieksekusi karena tidak ditebus. Tindakan ini menimbulkan keguncangan terhadap berbagai negara termasuk Indonesia. Dengan segala perhitungannya Indonesia masih menahan diri tidak melakukan aksi sendiri terutama sesudah empat orang WNI disandera oleh faksi yang berbeda di tubuh Abu Sayyaf.

Tentu pertanyaan besarnya adalah mengapa mereka menyandera sesama Muslim seperti dari Indonesia? Dalam konteks apa kebijakan mereka berubah ? Apa dampaknya terhadap kawasan Asia Tenggara terutama dari segi keamanan.

Ada dugaan bahwa kampanye negara Islam Suriah dan Irak yang dikenal dengan nama ISIS mengubah perilaku kelompok yang menginginkan negara Islam di Filipina Selatan. Tanda-tanda pengaruh ideologi ISIS terhadap Abu Sayyaf tampak dari dukungan kelompok ini terhadap ISIS. Ideologi ISIS tidak membedakan antara Muslim dan non Muslim. Sejauh ini ISIS hanya membedakan antara yang mendukung Khilafahnya dan yang tidak.
Mereka yang tidak mendukungnya dianggap musuh dan akan diperangi.

Prinsip ini terlihat misalnya dari pembunuhan terhadap umat Islam di Iraq dan Suriah. Mereka tidak mengenal istilah netral atau diam. Ketika tidak mendukung ideologi ISIS maka mereka akan diperangi.

Jika dikaitkan dengan penyanderaan Muslim Indonesia maka ideologi ISIS ini menjadi pembenaran. Dengan permintaan tebusan milyaran rupiah maka sandera dijadikan instrumen menggalang dana.

Sikap ini terjadi karena ISIS dianggap juga membenarkan langkah penyanderaan untuk mengumpulkan dana. Ketika ISIS menaklukan Irak utara, kilang minyak tetap berproduksi dan dijadikan pemasukan untuk memperbesar wilayah dan pengaruhnya.

Analisis bahwa ISIS bisa mengubah perilaku Abu Sayyaf akan memberikan dampak luas tidak hanya pada satu dua negara tetapi terhadap kawasan Asia Tenggara. Simpatisan ISIS di berbagai negara di Asia Tenggara mungkin terinspirasi langkah kelompok Abu Sayyaf.

Wajah Asia Tenggara setidaknya beberapa tahun ini tidak akan sama dengan sebelumnya. Kelompok Abu Sayyaf telah mengubah taktiknya untuk melakukan penyanderaan terhadap warga negara lain di luar Filipina. Jalur ekonomi sudah tersandera juga di sebagian wilayah Asia Tenggara, sementara keamanan maritim juga terancam. Ini merupakan tantangan negara kawasan untuk mengelola wilayah maritim lebih baik lagi. Setidaknya rasa aman harus dibangun kembali untuk keperluan ekonomi. ***

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

ASEAN Members Diversity Need Dynamic Policies

14 Monday Mar 2016

Posted by Setiawan in asia tenggara, Asian Affairs, Commentary, Hubungan Internasional, Journal Articles

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ASEAN, asia tenggara, Awareness

ASEAN Members Diversity Need Dynamic Policies

By Asep Setiawan[1]

INTRODUCTION

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been in the region for more than 48 years. During that time ASEAN has achieved some of its goals and mission. ASEAN transforms from several members become ten members which cover all Southeast Asia region. Initial focus of ASEAN is on political stability and security. But later, ASEAN want to be the big family which helping each other in term of economic and social development.

At this stage of ASEAN enter community based policy, occur some problems which are not handled before. From several survey including by The ASEAN Secretariat, some skepticism raised, doubt even pessimism among ASEAN people. These perceptions might come from lack of knowledge about ASEAN.

The paper will address problem on lack of ASEAN awareness from two approaches. Firstly, there are diversities among ASEAN members in term of political system and stages of their development. Secondly, different situation of members ASEAN demand dynamic policies to get better result.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

Commitment of ASEAN members to create environment that support their development in harmony has been in mind of founders. It was implication of situation that time such as Cold War in the World Politics and its confrontation among Southeast Asian countries. Members ASEAN seems do not want to involve on Superpower conflict and competition.

Not all Southeast Asian countries accept ASEAN mission when it was established. Sense of suspicious remains at that time so some of countries reluctant to join ASEAN.  ASEAN transform from five become ten members.

If we look closer on political system of members state and economic development there are gaps and differences. Based on democratic political system it is clear that ASEAN members have differences in their nature. That’s makes ASEAN unique.  Andreas Ufen (2007) presents table of democracy level in Southeast Asia.[2]

From table above it seems that member of ASEAN has certain variety in political life. That political system will influence level of awareness of ASEAN. Even if we look at economic development, make us clear that there are different levels of prosperity.[3]

DYNAMIC POLICIES

In order to achieve goals in socialization of ASEAN to grass root or at least to wider public in Southeast Asia there is need different policy for each members. For countries which classified as higher level of democracy, level of involvement public could be larger. Government here can be passive party but NGO and people get involve directly.

For some countries with different political system where government is dominant, different policies are applied. For example, government has responsibility to push socialization through government bodies.

And for some members where government is the only source of authority, campaign could be effective by certain ministry or high level officials.

SUMMARY

ASEAN approaches half century of it’s exist but policy to spread ASEAN ideas toward grass root becoming stronger when ASEAN enter community policy this year.

If we look at character of members ASEAN it is clear that the policies to increase awareness on unity of ASEAN should be done differently.

With different character and situation of every members of ASEAN, scale of priority is either different. Here, ASEAN need flexible and dynamic policies in order to make people of ASEAN aware the importance such regional organization that will help them.***

 

 

 

 

 

References

ADB and ILO, ASEAN community 2015: Managing integration for better jobs and shared prosperity Bangkok, Thailand: ILO and ADB, 2014.

Joshua Kurlantzick,ASEAN’s Future and Asian Integration. Council on Foreign Relations,  2012

Lunn, Jon and Gavin Thompson, Southeast Asia: A political and economic introduction. London, House of Commons, 2011

The ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. Jakarta, ASEAN Secretariat, 2008.

Thompson, Eric C. and Chulanee Thiantha, Attitudes and Awareness toward ASEAN: Findings of a Ten Nation Survey. ASEAN Foundation, 2007.

Ufen, Andreas, Political Party and Party System Institutionalisation in Southeast Asia: A Comparison of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand, GIGA Research Programme, 2007.

[1] Asep Setiawan is lecturer Department of Politics, University of Muhammadiyah Jakarta

[2] Andreas Ufen, Political Party and Party System Institutionalisation in Southeast Asia: A Comparison of Indonesia, the Philippines,  and Thailand, GIGA Research Programme, 2007

[3] ADB, ASEAN community 2015: Managing integration for better jobs and shared prosperity Bangkok, Thailand: ILO and ADB, 2014.

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Bencana Alam di Sumatera: Pemicu dan Solusi Berkelanjutan
  • Statecraft 3.0: AI dan Masa Depan Diplomasi
  • Perang Dagang Amerika-China 2025: Analisis Implikasi terhadap Ekonomi Asia Tenggara
  • Strategi Palestina Pasca Pengakuan Internasional
  • Perjuangan Palestina: Dari Pengakuan ke Kedaulatan Efektif

Archives

Categories

My Tweets

Pages

  • About
  • Academic Profile
  • Bahasa Inggris Diplomasi
  • Karya Jurnalistik
  • My Books
  • Pengantar Hubungan Internasional
  • Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Jurnal Asep Setiawan
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Jurnal Asep Setiawan
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d