Article Sidebar

Submitted
Feb 26, 2023
Published
Feb 28, 2023
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 173 Download : 310

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

In the Indo-Pacific constellation which targets political, security and economic issues, Indonesia is constructed as a middle power country. This construction originates from the political reality that Indonesia must hedge between the influence of the United States and China. In other words, the Indo-Pacific is a construction in which there are conflicting interests of the two great powers. Using the postcolonial critical discourse analysis method, this paper explores the construction that Indonesia is doing in ASEAN regarding the Indo-Pacific, namely the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. This paper looks at two important things: (1) the discursive power relations embodied in Indo-Pacific discourse and (2) the activity of manipulating discourse so that Indonesia is merely in a "safe" position in the conflict of big powers, and even tends to take advantage of it. As a result of these findings, this paper reconstructs the identity and role of Indonesia's middle power: Indonesia is not a bearer of inclusivity or an honest broker, but merely a client of two major powers.
?
Dalam konstelasi Indo-Pasifik yang menyasar permasalahan politik, keamanan, dan ekonomi, Indonesia dikonstruksikan sebagai negara middle power. Konstruksi tersebut bersumber dari kenyataan politik bahwa Indonesia harus melakukan hedging di antara pengaruh Amerika Serikat dan Cina. Dengan kata lain, Indo-Pasifik adalah sebuah konstruksi yang terdapat pertentangan kepentingan dua great oiwer di dalamnya. Menggunakan metode analisis wacana kritis poskolonial, tulisan ini mendalami konstruksi yang Indonesia lakukan dalam ASEAN terkait Indo-Pasifik, yakni ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. Tulisan ini melihat dua hal penting: (1) relasi kuasa diskursif yang terkandung dalam pewacanaan Indo-Pasifik dan (2) aktivitas manipulasi wacana agar Indonesia sekedar berposisi ?aman? dalam konflik kekuatan besar, bahkan cenderung memanfaatkan. Akibat temuan tersebut, tulisan ini merombak identitas dan peran middle power Indonesia: Indonesia bukan pembawa inklusivitas atau honest broker, tetapi sekedar klien dari dua kekuatan besar.

Keywords

great power politics Indo-Pasifik middle power Indonesia

Article Details

References

  1. Abbondanza, Gabriele. 2022. “Whither the Indo-Pacific? Middle Power Strategies from Australia, South Korea and Indonesia.” International Affairs 98(2): 403–21.
  2. Abe, Shinzo. 2007. “Confluence of the Two Seas.”
  3. Agastia, I Gusti Bagus Dharma. 2020. “Understanding Indonesia’s Role in the ‘ASEAN Outlook on the Indo‐Pacific’: A Role Theory Approach.” Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 7(3): 293–305.
  4. Anwar, Dewi Fortuna. 2020. “Indonesia and the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific.” International Affairs 96(1): 111–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz223.
  5. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
  6. Calabrese, John. 2020. “ASSURING A FREE AND OPEN INDO-PACIFIC – REBALANCING THE US APPROACH.” Asian Affairs 51(2): 307–27.
  7. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  8. Dannhauer, Pia. 2022. “Elite Role Conceptions and Indonesia’s Agency in the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific: Reclaiming Leadership.” The Pacific Review: 1–26.
  9. Epstein, Charlotte. 2010. “Who Speaks? Discourse, the Subject and the Study of Identity in International Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 17(2): 327– 50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109350055.
  10. Fujita, Masataka. 2021. “Can ASEAN Retain Centrality in Indo-Pacific Region? - From a GVC Point of View.” Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies 10(1): 108– 22.
  11. Hall, Stuart. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.
  12. London: SAGE Publications.
  13. Hosoya, Yuichi. 2019. “FOIP 2.0: The Evolution of Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy.” Asia-Pacific Review 26(1): 18–28.
  14. Huynh, Tam-Sang. 2021. “Bolstering Middle Power Standing: South Korea’s Response to U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy from Trump to Biden.” The Pacific Review: 1–29.
  15. Iksan, Muhamad, dan Jenn-Jaw Soong. 2022. “The Political Economy of Indonesia’s Development Strategy under China-USA Power Rivalry and Hegemonic Competition: A Middle Power with Its Hedging Strategy.” The Chinese Economy: 1–17.
  16. Insisa, Aurelio, dan Giulio Pugliese. 2022. “The Free and Open Indo-Pacific versus the Belt and Road: Spheres of Influence and Sino-Japanese Relations.” The Pacific Review 35(3): 557–85.
  17. Kim, Jaeyoung. 2022. “The Agency of Secondary States in Order Transition in the Indo- Pacific.” The Pacific Review: 1–29.
  18. Kitaoka, Shinichi. 2019. “Vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.” Asia-Pacific Review
  19. (1): 7–17.
  20. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2022. “Shades of Grey: Riskification and Hedging in the Indo- Pacific.” The Pacific Review: 1–34.
  21. Lim, Darren J., dan Zack Cooper. 2015. “Reassessing Hedging: The Logic of Alignment in East Asia.” Security Studies 24(4): 696–727.
  22. Ling, L. H. M. 2002. “Cultural Chauvinism and the Liberal International Order: ‘West versus Rest’ in Asia’s Financial Crisis.” Dalam Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class, ed. Geeta Chowdhry dan Sheila Nair. London: Routledge.
  23. Mauws, Michael K. 2000. “But Is It Art?” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
  24. (2): 229–44.
  25. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. 2022. “Position Paper of the People’s Republic of China on Supporting ASEAN Centrality in the Evolving Regional Architecture.” Communiques.
  26. Nagy, Stephen R. 2022. “US-China Strategic Competition and Converging Middle Power Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.” Strategic Analysis 46(3): 260–76.
  27. Pan, Chengxin. 2014. “The ‘Indo-Pacific’ and Geopolitical Anxieties about China’s Rise in the Asian Regional Order.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 68(4): 453–69.
  28. Phillips, Nelson, dan Cynthia Hardy. 2002. Discourse Analysis. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States of America : SAGE Publications, Inc.
  29. Riggins, Stephen Harold. 1997. The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  30. Roy, Denny. 2005. “Southeast Asia and China: Balancing or Bandwagoning?”
  31. Contemporary Southeast Asia 27(2): CS27-2g.
  32. Sanz Sabido, Ruth. 2015. “Palestine in the British Press: A Postcolonial Critical Discourse Analysis.” Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 8(3): 199–216.
  33. Scott, David. 2019. “Indonesia Grapples with the Indo-Pacific: Outreach, Strategic Discourse, and Diplomacy.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 38(2): 194–217.
  34. Skinner, Quentin. 1989. “Language and Political Change.” Dalam Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, ed. Terence Ball, James Farr, dan Russell L. Hanson. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
  35. Strange, Michael. 2011. “Discursivity of Global Governance.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 36(3): 240–56.
  36. Swaine, Michael D. 2018. “Creating an Unstable Asia: The U.S. ‘Free and Open Indo- Pacific’ Strategy.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  37. Tan, See Seng. 2020. “Consigned to Hedge: South-East Asia and America’s ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ Strategy.” International Affairs 96(1): 131–48.
  38. Tundang, Ronald Eberhard. 2019. “Indos-Pacific Economic Architecture: An ASEAN Perspective.” Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 113: 381–83.
  39. Ward, Steven. 2020. “Status, Stratified Rights, and Accommodation in International Relations.” Journal of Global Security Studies 5(1): 160–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz014.