Metodologi, Pesan dan Implikasi serangan teror di Paris


Oleh Benny YP Siahaan

 Serangan teroris kembali memilih Paris pada hari Jumat (13/11) yang menelan korban setidaknya 129 jiwa meninggal dan 352 luka-luka. Serangan ini merupakan yang kedua pada kota Paris setelah sebelumnya pada 7-9 Januari 2015. Kelompok teroris ISIS menyatakan bertanggung jawab atas serangan di Paris. Pemerintah Perancis mengumumkan tiga hari berkabung nasional atas kejadian itu.

Pesan dan metodologi  serangan teroris di Paris

Sebagaimana aksi teroris lainnya serangan Paris dipastikan memiliki pesan yang ingin disampaikan kelompok teroris kepada pihak lawan.  Umumnya aksi teror dilakukan karena  kelompok teroris tidak sanggup melawan kekuatan negara yang menjadi lawannya dan berharap melalui aksi terror mereka dapat memberikan dampak luka psikologis yang dalam kepada lawan.


Dalam pesan ISIS disebutkan kota Paris merupakan pilihan utama ISIS karena serangan udara belakangan ini di wilayah-wilayah caplokan ISIS  dilakukan oleh Perancis. Selain itu, pesan (terror) psikologis yang ingin disampaikan ISIS  bahwa setelah serangan awal Januari 2015 lalu ternyata Paris masih tetap tidak aman dan Pemerintah Perancis tidak mampu mencegahnya.

Metodologi dan teknik serangan teror berubah dari waktu ke waktu sesuai dengan konteks jaman yang dihadapi dan mengambil inspirasi baik dari aksi terror sebelumnya maupun dari literature dan film. Serangan teroris Paris baru-baru ini maupun yang sebelumnya pada Januari 2015 nampaknya  banyak terinspirasi dari kejadian sejumlah penembakan massal di AS beberapa  tahun belakangan ini yang  banyak terjadi di tempat publik seperti sekolah, pusat perbelanjaan bahkan bioskop. 

Sementara target serangan di Paris kali ini masih memilih tempat publik seperti   stadion, café , gedung konser dan restoran. Yang membedakan kali ini adalah, selain senapan mesin, teroris  memakai rompi berbahan peledak sebagai bom bunuh diri dan serangan dilakukan secara terkoordinasi di berbagai tempat dalam waktu yang hampir bersamaan.

Ditengarai serangan 11 September 2001 terinspirasi dari film Executive Decision (1996) yang berisi tentang pembajakan pesawat  dan berencana menabrakkannya ke Gedung Putih. Bahkan aksi bom bunuh diri yang banyak dipraktikan oleh teroris asal Timteng dan  dewasa ini identik menjadi bagian aksi teroris jihadis namun sebenarnya terinspirasi dari serangan bom bunuh diri yang dilakukan oleh pemberontak separatis  Tamil terhadap Srilanka pada tahun 1970-80an.

Implikasi ke depan
Serangan teroris Paris akan memberikan banyak implikasi. 

Pertama, hal yang cukup  mengkhawatirkan dari kejadian Paris adalah trend  teroris hanya menggunakan senapan mesin ringan dan bom rompi yang dari segi biaya dan teknologi tidak mahal dan sulit dilacak terutama di negara-negara yang penggunaan senjata api tidak terlampau ketat.

Selain itu, serangan yang dilakukan pada multi-target mengingatkan kita pada serangan 11 September 2001 yang tidak hanya menarget gedung World Trade Centre (WTC) New York tetapi juga Pentagon di Virginia dan Gedung Putih di Washington DC. Namun kesemuanya itu adalah symbol-simbol yang saat ini dijaga ketat. Untuk aksi teroris Paris mereka tidak memilih symbol seperti Menara Eiffel yang tentunya akan sulit diserang karena dijaga ketat. Oleh karenanya mereka memilih restoran dan konser music serta stadion yang juga banyak didatangi pengunjung. Yang cukup aneh adalah kenapa penjagaan stadion tidak begitu ketat sehingga senjata dan sabuk bom bisa lolos.  Selain itu Presiden Hollande juga menonton pertandingan di stadio itu.

Akibatnya, negara-negara yang berafialiasi dengan Barat mulai was-was dengan kejadian Paris. Sebagai contoh sehari setelah kejadian Paris kepolisian New York (NYPD) segera mengumumkan agar warga kota New York untuk berhati-hati ditempat keramaian. Sabtu sore (14/11) NYPD mengerahkan pasukan ke tempat-tempat pariwisata seperti Times Square untuk berjaga-jaga.

Oleh karenanya sejumlah negara yang akan menjadi tuan rumah dari pertemuan-pertemuan tingkat tinggi yang akan dihadiri  Presiden AS, EU maupun Rusia akan bekerja ekstra keras akibat kejadian di Paris. Misalnya  Filipina yang akan menjadi tuan rumah pertemuan APEC pada 18-19 November,  Turki sebagai tuan rumah pertemuan G-20 di Antaliya pada 15-16 November 2015 serta Malaysia sebagai tuan rumah KTT East Asian Summit (EAS) pada 21-22 November di Kuala Lumpur. Yang agak serius mungkin adalah kota Paris akan menjadi tuan rumah pertemuan KTT Perubahan Iklim (COP 21) pada 30 November -11 Desember 2015.

Kedua, kebijakan terhadap  pengungsi Timteng ke Uni Eropa jelas akan terpengaruh akibat kejadian di Paris. Negara-negara Uni Eropa yang yang awalnya tidak suka dengan derasnya arus pengungsi Timteng ke Eropa pasti akan menjustifikasi serangan Paris kebijakan mereka untuk  memperketat jumlah pengungsi yang masuk ke wilayah mereka. Bahkan, dilaporkan bahwa salah satu teroris di Paris adalah “pengungsi” Suriah yang masuk Perancis melalui Yunani.

Ketiga, terlepas dari kejadian di atas yang menjadi korban adalah rakyat Syria dan penduduk kota Paris mereka adalah korban yang tidak berdosa dari tindakan tindakan politik yang diambil pemerintahannya masing-masing. Terlepas dari itu aksi Paris  ini merupakan tindakan yang sangat kejam dan harus dikutuk karena memakan jiwa-jiwa tidak berdosa.

Keempat, serangan Paris juga akan  menjadi inspirasi elemen-elemen teroris dibelahan dunia lain melihat kesuksesan mereka. Indonesia juga tidak akan terlepas dari hal ini. Sekarang bagaimana kita menghadapi hal ini? Dewasa ini serangan terorisi dapat terjadi dimana saja terutama tempat publik dan tempat tempat yang menjadi simbol-simbol dari lawan.

Oleh karenanya, untuk melawan dan mencegak tindak terorisme kiranya tidak cukup menjadi tanggung jawab aparat namun juga tanggung jawa kita semua. Dan hal itu dapat dimulai dari hal yang kecil-kecil misalnya dengan segera melaporkan hal-hal yang mencurigakan  kepada aparat keamanan setempat. Namun demikian, kiranya serangan Paris dan implikasinya tidak menjadikan kita paranoid.

New York, 14 November 2015


Cancer, can we live without it?


Benny YP Siahaan
Sore dan malam ini (10/11) saya dan teman-teman kantor ke RS Long Island Jewish (LIJ) di Forest Hills dan Funeral Home di Elmhurst di Queens, New York.  Kami menjenguk seorang diaspora Indonesia di New York  yang sakit keras dan melayat warga Indonesia yang meninggal. Keduanya menghadapi penyakit yang sama: kanker, penyakit yang paling diakuti abad ini dan sampai saat ini belum ditemukan obat yang manjur baik untuk preventif maupun  kuratifnya.
Pak Un, begitu saya memanggilnya adalah teman baik, setia dan jiwa sosial yang tinggi. Tidak heran banyak teman-temannya rajin menjenguk baik di rumah maupun di rawat di RS. Kami dikabari bahwa beliau sudah dalam saat saat terakhirnya akibat penyakit yang dideritanya. Saat merasa waktu sangat cepat, padahal baru bulan Mei 2015 lalu saya dan istri menjenguk beliau setelah dioperasi untuk memotong sel kanker  agar tidak menyebar.
Saat kami jenguk pak Un sudah kurus sekali.  Bu Ling Ling istrinya seperti biasa tabah dan setia mendampingi suami tercintanya hingga disaat –saat terakhirnya. Menyambut kami ramah, beliau membangunkan pak Un yang sudah mulai tidak sadar dan fokus yang menurut bu Ling akibat asupan morfin yang diberikan dokter untuk menahan rasa sakit. “kanker sudah menyebar ke mana-mana, ginjalnya sudah kena dan livernya juga” tutur bu Ling sambil menahan air mata namun berusaha untuk tabah. Sebelum pamit kami menghibur bu Ling untuk tetap tabah dan sabar menghadapi cobaan hidup. Pak Un kiranya Tuhan memberikan kekuatan dan ketabahan atas cobaan ini.
Di Funeral yang kami kunjungi terbaring ibu Setiawati Loppies. Wajahnya seperti tertidur dan nampaknya telah siap Tuhan memanggilnya dan badannya kurus sekali.  Kami di kebaktian penghiburan terharu melihat video keluarga yang memperlihatkan bu Loppies saat sehat maupun saat sakit. Pak Stanley, suami ibu Loppies dan anak-anaknya kelihatan begitu kehilangan atas kepergian sang istri dan ibu tercinta. Semoga bu Loppies beristirahat dengan tenang di rumah Bapa di Surga. Amin.
Di keluarga saya, kanker cervix juga telah mengambil tante Intan, yang kami sayangi. Sebelumnya tante dinyatakan sehat oleh dokter karena sudah lima tahun tidak pernah muncul gejalanya. Namun hanya kurang dari satu tahun saat relapse, kanker ganas itu mengambil tante Intan dari kami.
Dan akhir-akhir ini kami semakin banyak mendengar teman dan kenalan kami yang terserang kanker. Ia menyerang tidak pandang bulu.  Kaya-miskin, tua-muda.
Menurut definisi Yayasan Kanker Indonesia (YKI) Kanker adalah penyakit akibat pertumbuhan tidak normal dari sel-sel jaringan tubuh yang berubah menjadi sel kanker. Dalam perkembangannya, sel-sel kanker ini dapat menyebar ke bagian tubuh lainnya sehingga dapat menyebabkan kematian
Minggu lalu majalah Time edisi 9 November 2015 menurunkan berita yang cukup menghebohkan: Red Meat, Hot Dogs and the War on Delicious. Intinya penyakit kanker berdasarkan penelitian ilmiah banyak disebabkan oleh makanan yang diproses seperti sosis, bacon, daging kornet dll. Hasil penelitian ini, meski sudah banyak yang menduga,  cukup mengejutkan dan akan banyak menimbulkan pro dan kontra terutama dari produsen makanan yang diproses yang dapat dipastikan akan mengeluarkan “penelitian’ tandingan untuk mengamankan produksinya. Seperti halnya asosiasi produsen minuman soda (Coca cola dan Pepsi) di AS menyewa “ilmuwan” untuk menyatakan bahwa tidak ada kaitanya minuman soda dengan diabetes.
Di Indonesia juga kita sebagai bagian kehidupan modern, processed food adalah hampir makanan setiap hari. Mulai dari mi instan, sosis dan lain lainya.
Menurut data badan kesehatan Dunia WHO tahun 2014, kematian akibat kanker di Indonesia sebesar 1,551.000 jiwa sejak tahun 2000 dengan pendudul 247 juta jiwa. Korban pria lebih banyak dibanding wanita dan untuk wanita umumnya akibat kanker payudara sementara untuk pria banyak terkait dengan pernafasan dan paru-paru. Sementara AS dengan penduduk 336 juta jiwa, jumlah kematian akibat kanker sejak tahu 2000 adalah 2,656.000  yang lebih banyak memakan korban pria akibat kanker prostat dan wanita akibat kanker payudara.
Masyarakat internasional saat ini sudah dapat meminimalisir penyakit penyakit yang menjadi momok sebelumnya seperti polio, cacar dll. Apakah masyarakat dunia dapat kembali menemukan vaksin atau obat yang manjur untuk penyakit yang mengerikan ini? Nobody knows.
Seperti dikatakan bahwa penyakit kanker terkait dari gaya hidup dan pola makan. Merokok dan makanan fast food merupakan salah satu biang keladi penyebab kanker. Seperti halnya AIDS juga umumnya disebutkan karena gaya hidup seperti seks bebas dan tidak berpelindung. Akhirnya kita kembali ke kita semua. Namun kanker lebih mengerikan karena banyak yang  sudah melakukan hidup sehat dan hidup preventif untuk menghindari kanker, terkadang terkena kanker juga. Nampaknya dunia kedokteran perlu lebih keras lagi mencari kuratif penyakit yang mengerikan ini.
Sore ini saya mendengar pak Un  mendapat sakramen perminyakan (sakramen untuk orang yang sakit berat) dari pastur, dan nampaknya keluarga sudah mulai merelakan yang terbaik untuk Pak Un. Selamat jalan bu Ati Loppies dan doa kami untuk Pak Un.

 
                                       New York, 11 November 2015 at 16.48

 

 

When the Devil Presents in Carnegie Hall



By Benny YP Siahaan

What are you going to do if the devil (Dedemit) is in the room?  Run or scream right? But the people at Carnegie Hall that night in silence, stayed, and enjoyed it.

In collaboration with Indonesian Consulate General in New York, Jaya Suprana together with his current and former students held a concert titled The Indonesia Pusaka at Weill Recital Hall, Carnegie Hall, New York on Oct 20, 2015.


The concert features 12 young Indonesian pianists, mostly from Jaya Suprana School of Performing Arts, Jakarta.

Locals and Indonesian diaspora from New York and surrounding cities packed the 268-seat hall. Desra Percaya Indonesian ambassador to UN, former Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro and several members of diplomatic circles in New York were also seen attending the concert.

In her opening remarks read by Indonesian Ambassador to US B. Bowoleksono, Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs Retno Marsudi congratulates Jaya Suprana for his effort in promoting Indonesia to the world trough arts and culture.  

She also underlines the importance of cultural diplomacy in promoting Indonesia’s State philosophy, Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (one out of many).

Bedhaya, the sacred dance from Central Java, kicked off the show performed by eight female dancers symbolizing various acts of adolescence girls.

The centerpiece of the show was the piano concert which featured among others Jesslyn Handoko, Evelyn Abidin, Randy Ryan, Ryan Ferguson, Gabriela Handoko, Viona Sanjaya, and Gillian Gani.

Whist Suprana informatively yet entertainingly explains each of his compositions and introducing the pianists who are mostly in their teens except Jesslyn Handoko, age 9. All the performers are award winning pianists and have performed in other world class stages like Sydney Opera House.

They played Suprana’s favorite compositions like Tri Reminiskenza, For Ayla III & XI, Aforisma& amp; Geguritan, For Ayla IV, Fantasi Arum Dalu, Sonata Sekar Setaman, Fragment Dolanan, Variasi Gethuk, Aforisma, Rhapsodia  Lir-IlirUro-uro and Dedemit.

The audience seemed to drift in the inner emotion of each composition, from cheerful and witty (Fantasy Arum Dalu), romantic (For Ayla) to melancholy (Aforisma).

Hendrata Prasetya performed the pinnacle of the concert by playing “Dedemit” (devil) composition. Suprana said that Dedemit is the most difficult composition he has ever made.

He even asked the technician to dim the lighting to create a creepy atmosphere. Yet Hendratta played it beautifully. It was crisp with beautiful control of the delicate repertoire.

The last part of the show, the audience heard Armonia Choir who performed Javanese traditional folk songs like Manuk Dadali and Jali-Jali as well as a special song composed by Suprana for the event called Indonesia.

The concert drew a mixed review. Joseph from Italy said that the piano concert was superb.  He was so entertained by the young talented Indonesian pianists.  Eugene from Singapore said that he was so surprised that he never heard of Jaya Suprana.

Lukewarm comments mostly went to dance and choir performances which they said that the performers need more practice to meet the high standard and reputation of Carnegie Hall.

In general, what spectators most appreciate was the piano concert. Some of the audience even said that without dance and choir the recital would be more focused and beautiful. Even some said the choir became the anticlimax of Hendrata’s excellent performance.

According to Suprana, with more Indonesian artists perform in world class stages like Carnegie Hall, he hopes that it will make more Indonesian young talents get worldwide recognition.

And surely this concert was a great opportunity to grow, to nurture their already innate talents to the next level, to even greater heights”, he adds.

Indeed, with their splendid performance, they showed us a hint of the direction they are heading.
All in all, it was an entertaining event.
                                                                                                                  New York,  October 2015

The Comparison Between Soekarno's and Jokowi's Initial Visit to the US


By Benny YP Siahaan

While many don’t really comprehend the logic behind President Jokowi’s decision not to attend one of the most historic events in New York, September 2015 -- Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reportedly President Jokowi decided to visit the US from Oct 25-28, 2015 to meet President Obama. The two leaders will discuss a wide range of global, regional, and bilateral issues of interest to both countries. Nonetheless, critics have criticized the visit, claiming it is uneconomical for the VP and President to visit the same country in less than a month. The VP visited New York from 23 September to 2 Oct 2015.

Why not just combine them into one visit? Jokowi could have met bilaterally with Obama at the UN just like other Heads of States do, this is a common practice. Reportedly also, his visit to the US is not a state visit but only an official visit, which implies that there will be no State Dinner etc. Aside from the above debate, I am more interested in viewing Jokowi’s initial visit to the US from a different perspective. Jokowi is a popular leader in Indonesia.

This reminds me of the visit of President Soekarno, also a popular leader, who made the first visit to US in 1956 which many considered a huge success. Hence I would like to compare the first visits of the two presidents, including the different challenges and environmental factors faced by the two leaders in their respective times and what possible benefits might be derived from Jokowi’s visit.

Soekarno’s first visit to the US was from May 16 to June 3, 1956. The world in 1950s was in the early era of the Cold War and Soekarno was very popular internationally as “neutralist”, since he was considered champion of the NAM which had just conducted its first Conference in Bandung, April 1955. He visited not only Washington DC, but also other cities like New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, LA, and San Francisco. During his visit, Soekarno had a State Luncheon, State Dinner, and speech before the Congress Joint Session. Aside his son Guntur Soekarno Putra, he was accompanied by only 15 delegation from Jakarta –a very efficient number for a State Visit.

Jokowi reportedly will only visit Washington DC and San Francisco to meet with business and universities leaders. Since it is not a State Visit, there will be no State Dinner, speech before Joint of Congress or any public ceremonies. Jokowi is known for being efficient in term of number of delegation. While visited the US, Soekarno faced many internal problems ranging from local insurgencies to national political rift and economic problems, which were common as a fledgling nation. Jokowi will now visit US when Indonesia at its 70th year. Indonesia is no longer a young nation but still has problems to address. Now insurgencies are on the wane. Currently, perhaps, only Papua is still a problem, but the difference is that during Sukarno’s visit, Indonesia was in the process of securing Papua to become its territory from the Dutch; the following years after the visit, the US became one of the supporters of Indonesia in this endeavor which was demonstrated through the New York Agreement in 1962.

In the 1950s, Indonesia was considered a champion of human rights in its early years, because it was at the forefront supporting the struggle of many countries against colonialism. In 1956, only 80 countries were registered with the UN, there are now 193 countries with South Sudan being the latest member. On the other hand, Jokowi inherited the consequences of past human rights abuses by his predecessors notably President Soeharto, including the 1965 Communist purge.

Geopolitically, in the 1950s Southeast Asia was not a stable region since it was on the brink of proxy competition between the Eastern and Western bloc. Now ASEAN is considered as one of the most progressive and stable regions in the world despite potential flashpoints such as South China Sea issue. Furthermore, Indonesia was known as the country with the highest Muslim population and impoverished economy, it has now become the third largest democracy and the biggest economy in Southeast Asia. Psychologically, during Soekarno’s visit, the US was at the peak of its time as super power and victor of WWII, but Soekarno with high confidence met President Eisenhower and gave a persuasive and excellent but blunt speech before Joint Session of Congress about non-alignment and independency, a speech which drew a big applause from Congress. Now, the US is not that great anymore.

It was due to Soekarno‘s extraordinary oratory skills and charismatic personality that he could brilliantly manage the liabilities of his country to become assets and get sympathy from the US public such as through laying wreath on Thomas Jefferson’s grave in Virginia and said “Jefferson was one of my teachers”. He received a warm in all cities he visited --about 80,000 New Yorkers cheered his motorcade parade from Battery to City Hall.

            In short, his visit was a great success. On the other hand, Jokowi has long been known as a timid person (typical of Solo people) in contrast with Soekarno from East Java who are known to be more direct like the American people. Apart from that, the current standing of Jokowi is higher than that of Soekarno initial visit to the US. Although it is only an official visit, it is hoped that the impact will be greater than that of Soekarno’s first visit.

Furthermore, time and challenges faced by the two leaders might be different but the goals to make Indonesia great and prosperous has to be the main objectives of Indonesia’s leaders including through their foreign visits.

Ah, the last but not the least is about their names. President Jokowi actually has two names: Joko Widodo, while President Soekarno just like any old Javanese has only one name. But jokingly, the US media said Soekarno may have only one name but he has multiple wives. Reportedly, the reason why Soekarno in his visit was only accompanied by his son was since the First Lady Fatmawati divorced him due to Soekarno’s marriage to other women. In Jokowi’s upcoming visit, I believe he will be accompanied by the First Lady.




Is an Asia-Pacific Community the answer to security and world order?




By Benny YP Siahaan

I recently attended the Asia Society’s seminar in New York titled “Securing Peace in Asia: Time to Build an Asia-Pacific Community?” The topic was very intriguing with a list of speakers who are distinguished in their respective fields, such as Marty Natalegawa, former Indonesian Foreign Minister and Thomas Donilon, former Deputy US National Security Adviser.  The seminar was chaired by Kevin Rudd who currently presided over the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York.

In essence the seminar was discussing whether it the time is ripe to establish the Asia Pacific Community (APC) in view of the worrisome recent development in the region’s flashpoints, notably the South China Sea and North Korean Peninsula, among others. According to Rudd, the worrying trend of peace and security in the region should be anticipated early and the region could not afford to wait for a World War to happen first, like Europe before they established the European Steel and Coal Community (ESCS) and European Economic Community (EEC).


While the speakers and the chair tend to agree on the idea of establishing such an institution with a possibility of taking ASEAN and East Asia Community (EAS) as the model of departure, the larger questions regarding the practicality and urgency of establishing APC remain at large to the audience, including me. It is easily guessed that Kevin Rudd is the main force behind this seminar as he has incessantly been selling the concept since 2008, since he was Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Australia, up to the present. He envisioned that such a mechanism would be established by 2020. If it is established APC will be the biggest regional mechanism since it will comprise 60 percent of the world's population.

The quest for world order and effective international cooperation seems to be becoming increasingly sought after in recent years due to the shift of global geopolitical and geoeconomy, characterized by anarchical world politics particularly after the Cold War, and compounded by the rise of emerging powers like India and notably China as a potential superpower and its increasingly assertive behavior.

Theoretically this condition  more likely fits as described by International Relations (IR) theorist Kenneth Waltz on anarchic structure of world politics, in which he argued that when it comes to the study of international politics (state interactions) it’s about how to conceive of an order without an orderer and of organizational eects where formal organization is lacking. Hence, the deficiency of a world authoritative body, trust and cooperation that supposedly arises from a condition of anarchic self-help is considered to be the basis of sovereign world politics.

This, multilaterally, can be seen from the failure of the UN to address major conflicts and failures of other multilateral institution like the World Trade Organization who failed to achieve a major round since replacing GATT in 1994. The World Bank, IMF, and Asian Development Bank also waned in its control and legitimacy while China and BRICS countries established parallel institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and New Development Bank (NDB) respectively. On the other hand, local conflicts tend to multiply.

In this anarchical world politics, the immediate logical question is why are states not always at war with one another if there is no authoritative power to respect and obey? Waltz argued that while anarchy is somewhat vulnerable to war, the self-help structure that arises between states coerces them to balance against one another and avert war at all times if possible, largely due to its  devastating consequences, or in Marty Natalegawa’s words, it is “dynamic equilibrium” that ensures order. This may partly explain that although the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has so far failed to address the discrimination between nuclear and non-nuclear states, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is widely accepted among the nuclear power countries to prevent the next World War due to its mutual annihilating consequences. But it has produced proxy local military conflicts including the recent ones such as in Crimea and the Middle East.

Instead, since there is no authoritative body or country that keeps countries safe from one another and they cannot fully rely on the cooperation of other states, Waltz argues that states should exert their maximum capacity to ensure their survival. This involves building up their military capabilities, alliance-building and intelligence. In that regard, in the last decade we have seen the biggest military buildup in history in the Asia Pacific region; even the NSA’s PRISM clandestine surveillance program of foreign nationals and leaders is part of this context.

Nonetheless, although many consider anarchical world politics to be an issue that needs to be addressed, few think it is possible. Even worse, some consider the international anarchy as a fact of life, and even somewhat a “norm”. 

Hence, although we have seen that the media and commentators seem to portray that there is a tendency of China to challenge the US’s dominance in military, political and financial/economic fronts, hence possibly creating an impression that there is possible split or conflict between China and the US in the region, I think we should not be too anxious since the rise of China is a fact and we have to accept that China is now a US balancer in the region. The most important thing is to keep both superpowers from opting for a zero sum game, which I think is also unlikely anyway.

Indonesia as a middle power may seek a role in bridging these two great powers.

Against this backdrop, the issue of whether we need an Asia Pacific Community has become less relevant in this regard. As long as there is a dynamic equilibrium serving to build trust among each other through dialog within existing mechanisms in the region (ASEAN, EAS, etc.), any new mechanism will need to be thoroughly scrutinized for its merits.

----