Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kebijakan pemerintah Indonesia sebagai middle power dalam mempertahankan hubungan dengan Korea Utara. Kebijakan pemerintah Indonesia tersebut berada di tengah tren global yang cenderung menjauhi Korea Utara. Pemerintah Korea Utara dijauhi oleh dunia Internasional karena kebijakan luar negerinya yang kontroversial khususnya menyangkut tentang senjata nuklir. Berlawanan dengan pemerintah negara lain, Pemerintah Indonesia memiliki kebijakan untuk tetap mempertahankan hubungan baik dengan Korea Utara. Indonesia dan Korea Utara telah memulai hubungan yang harmonis sejak pemerintahan Presiden Soekarno. Hingga saat ini, Indonesia tetap berusaha untuk mempertahankan keharmonisan hubungan tersebut. Kerangka teori pada penelitian ini adalah konsep middle power. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode kualitatif. Penelitian ini bersifat deksriptif-analitis. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah dengan menggunakan kajian kepustakaan. Teknik analisis data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah dengan melakukan reduksi data, penyajian data, dan penarikan kesimpulan. Hasil yang diperoleh dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa kebijakan pemerintah Indonesia untuk mempertahankan hubungan baik dengan Korea Utara merupakan bentuk dari middle power. Pemerintah Indonesia memiliki kebijakan sebagai developing country voices, a regional leader, a bridge-builder, dan an advocate of democracy.
Kata Kunci: Kebijakan, Pemerintah Indonesia, Middle Power

/pdf/analysis-of-indonesian-policy-as-middle-power-towards-north-g7n6tgyl.pdf

Analysis of Indonesian Policy as Middle Power towards North Korea

The future of the G20 is more complicated than its robust origins would suggest. Back in 2008 amid the myriad of economic shocks it could be said—without too much hyperbole—that the G20 was the forum that “saved the world.” In a decisive move of joint action, brought on by fears of a collective dive towards a Great Recession, the major economies in the world chose to hang together rather than separately. From the initial leaders’ summit in Washington, D.C. (November 2008) to the second in London (April 2009) and the third in Pittsburgh (September 2009), the G20 became positioned as the premier forum for global economic governance. The immediate impact of the G20 as a “crisis breaker” has been palpable. In its ascendant stage the G20 served as an effective catalyst for generating both generous domestic stimulus packages and as a source of impressive amounts of funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other multilateral development banks. Between the first two G20 summits, nations raised their commitment to spending up to a combined 1.8 percent of GDP.1 London added the largest pledge in history, over $1 trillion. The collective desire to prevent a repeat of the crisis also produced additional reforms in the international institutional architecture, most notably through the move to a reconfigured Financial Stability Board (FSB).

The Middle 7 Initiative

The creation of successful global regimes requires a convergence of power, interests, and ideas.1 Such a convergence is rare. At the global, as opposed to regional, level, it has virtually never happened. The contemporary international environment is characterized by uncertain hegemonic power, competing but not zero-sum interests, and differing ideas. Under these conditions it will be impossible to reach a consensus on new overarching global regimes, although an agreement can be reached in some areas. States will remain the primary units of the international system,2 and the policies of individual states, the more powerful ones in particular, will be driven by short and medium term interests derived primarily from domestic political pressures. Variable geometry (different country groupings for different issue areas) will continue to characterize international institutions.

Mo Jongryn

Papers

The Middle 7 Initiative

Regime Building in the Competitive World Order the Case of The G20