<data:blog.pageName/> | <data:blog.title/>

Saturday, June 6, 2015 '

Pertemuan 4 CB

Pada kegiatan yang terakhir ini, kami memberikan penyuluhan kepada teman-teman kami di Jurusan Hubungan Internasional. Kami memasuki beberapa kelas untuk melakukan penyuluhan singkat mengenai kanker anak. Kami membagikan info yang didapatkan dari hasil sharing bersama ibu Ester pada hari-hari sebelumnya.
Kami juga membagikan buku kepada teman-teman kami sebagai saran informasi yang lebih lengkap dan detail.

Pertemuan 3 CB

Pertemuan ini sekaligus pertemuan terakhir dengan YAI. Pada awalnya kami berniat untuk mengajarkan bahasa perancis kepada anak-anak YAI. Tetapi sangat disayangkan, saat kami datang kondisi sedang tidak kondusif karena beberapa anak sedang mengalami penurunan kondisi kesehatannya sehingga tidak ada anak yang berada di YAI, karena semuanya sedang berada di Rumah Sakit.
Akhirnya, Ibu Ester memberikan kami tugas untuk memasukan flyer kedalam buku-buku yang dibuat oleh YAI. Buku-buku ini akan digunakan untuk kegiatan penyuluhan-penyuluhan yang dilakukan oleh YAI.
Lalu tidak lupa kami memberikan bingkisan kepada ibu Ester selaku perwakilan YAI, sebagai bentuk terima kasih kita.

Monday, May 25, 2015 '

Pertemuan 2 CB

Pada 7 Mei, kami melakukan kunjungan yang kedua ke YAI. Di kunjungan kami kali ini, kami mengajarkan Bahasa Inggris kepada anak-anak YAI. Ada 4 orang anak, karena ada jenjang yang terlalu lebar 2 anak yang masih duduk di bangku SD dan 2 anak yang sudah duduk di bangku SMA. Maka dari itu, kami memutuskan untuk belajar bahasa Inggris dengan cara bermain, hal ini juga dikarenakan kami menyediakan materi untuk anak-anak SD.
Lalu kami bermain Pancasila 5 dasar tetapi menggunakan bahasa Inggris, dimana kita harus menyebutkan sesuatu (sesuai tema,misalnya buah) tetapi dalam bahasa Inggris. Lalu setelah itu, sebagai hukuman bagi yang kalah, kami menyediakan lagu bahasa Inggris dan harus diikuti dengan gayanya.
Materi ini kami ajarkan karena sesuai dengan anjuran Ibu Ester bahwa anak-anak sangat kurang dalam Bahasa Inggris sehingga materi tersebut tentu dapat membantu mereka.

Pertemuan 1 CB

Dimulai pada tgl 10 April 2015, Kami mengunjungi Yayasan Anyo Indonesia. YAI menyediakan rumah singgah bagi anak-anak dengan kanker khususnya yang tidak mampu atau rumahnya jauh dari RS Kanker Dharmais.
Pada pertemuan pertama, kami diminta oleh Ibu Ester selaku perwakilan YAI untuk membantu kegiatan bersih-bersih terutama pada bagian-bagian yang sulit di jangkau oleh anak-anak rumah singgah maupun orang tuanya.
Hal ini kami lakukan atas dasar permintaan Ibu Ester sendiri. Ibu Ester mengatakan bahwa banyak grup-grup yang datang dan hanya menggambar atau bernyanyi saja dimana anak-anak sudah bosan dengan hal-hal seperti itu, maka beliau memberikan saran kepada kami untuk melakukan hal-hal yang lebih kontributif untuk YAI. Maka dari itu, Ibu Ester menyarankan kami untuk membantu kegiatan bersih-bersih pada pertemuan pertama ini.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015 '

US-EU

Neorealist Perspectives in US – EU Security Cooperation

Since 1995, United States (US) and European Union (EU) had made an agreement to reduce the tension between US and European states. This agreement called the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA). In “A New Agenda for US-EU Security Cooperation” working paper, Daniel Korski and his two partners, Daniel Serwer and Megan Chabalowski (2009) write down three new agendas that will help this cooperation continue. But, if we look from neorealist perspective, I argue that this cooperation will not work well.

Based on neorealist assumptions, we could define US and EU behavior with this cooperation. First, the anarchic structure, where there is no authority above state and self-help system. Even they cooperate, but in some situations, they have to help their own self which is made the cooperation seem useless. Second, an unipolarity condition, which made US as the main actor who have the most capabilities. We know that every single state has their own national interest that need to be achieved. So, these big capabilities made US could achieve their national interest easier. Third, neorealist believes in relative gain, where cooperation could be realized if the benefit is profitable enough.

At the first time, this cooperation is focus in economic reconstruction by the Marshall Plan (Cowles & Egan, 2012). Then, it deepened to a military strategic cooperation. At that moment, Europe has been in misery because of the impact of World War and European had to depend in US, where US had better economic and military. This cooperation continued until Suez Canal Crisis happened in 1956 (Garrison). This crisis made US and European cooperation become widen. After the crisis, European states started to make cooperation between themselves, started by European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which leaded to the unification of some of European states in European Union (EU).

Thus, the cooperation began again when Yugoslavia war broke. NATO’s success made US and EU formed a working group. This group composed the “New Transatlantic Agenda” (NTA) with four goals, such as: Promoting peace and stability, democracy and development around the world; Responding to global challenges; Contributing to the expansion of world trade and closer economic relations (New Transatlantic Agenda, 1995). Therefore, to implement this agenda, they also made a Joint EU/US Action Plan.

With neorealist assumption, we know that this international system is anarchy. Where there is no authority above state. It makes every single state have to help their own self. In this case, cooperation between US and EU could not work well. Because, in some situation, even they work together, the other could not help. For instance, when US invade Iraq, he owned no support from other state. Especially from France and Germany who strongly disagree and assume US action was exaggerating (WEISMAN, 2003). Other state like Russia and China also oppose US interest because they don’t have any issues with Iraq (Yew, 2007). This illustration makes it clear that US could not gain support even they are cooperating with European states. US also could not compel them to invade Iraq because in anarchic world, a state could not ask other to do what they want. Opposition by Russia and China also could not be resisted by the aid of European states, indeed US have to overcome this issue alone.

Second, in neorealist we believe in distribution of power. This power is functionally undifferentiated, which to achieve survival. But, every state will have different proportion of power depend on how they obtain it. US as the hegemony power, have the most capabilities than others. This condition makes it clear that US actually did not need any big help from others. For this reason, we could assume that in Iraq War even though no state supported US, but he could keep doing the invasion (Singal, Lim, & Stephey, 2010). This invasion was done because US has national interest in there. US feel humiliated by the accident of 9/11, so for show his power, Bush invaded Iran with the reason to his people is to wipe out terrorism out there.

US-EU cooperation is also only shown in some states, such as in Middle East. Notably, it is because US national interest is in those states. In Middle East, there are many anti-American movements which make US foreign policy is toward them. But, in other fail state such as in Africa, their cooperation rarely shown to help those fail states. Surely, it is because US national interest is not in Africa. For this reason, it can be seemed that US as hegemony could rule EU. Regardless with the national interest of EU given that it makes an inequitable cooperation of US and EU.

Besides, we also know that every state has national interest. The cooperation between US and EU could be hard, because in EU there are 28 countries in EU whereby each state certainly will have different national interest. US have to wait approval from 28 countries which will take a long time. With this in mind, US will not know what EU really intention. Since it depends on 28 countries who most of the periphery states in EU have different view from US. This uncertainty of intention made the agreement of cooperation will be long achieved.

My last argument is neorealist see the possibility of cooperation as long as it gives vast benefit. In fact, EU still could not give any benefit to US. Such as, EU should have gave support in Middle East area where the US has a big attention in there or EU probably could give money and send experts to the region that in their predictions will have conflicts (Korski, Preventing Crises and Managing Conflicts: U.S.-EU Cooperation). As a matter of fact that condition could not be afforded by EU.

Moreover, now US see that their cooperation with EU is not a priority. While, the emerging power by China and some state in South Asia provided that US start to move his foreign policy to pacific region. China influence in Asia made US start to be caution with this new power (Schwenninger, 2007). Additionally, even China projects his power through economy but their ideology still communism. Furthermore, It made that US will not step aside since spreading liberalism is their main concern in what they do in Middle East. So, US will not give any space to China spread the communism.

In conclusion, US-EU cooperation will not work well by the view from neorealist perspective. Because first, the anarchic structure and granted the self-help system. Second, US as a hegemony power will try to impose their national interest rather to cooperate. Third, US will not cooperate if the benefit is not profitable enough to him.

REFERENCES

New Transatlantic Agenda. (1995). 2.

Cowles, M. G., & Egan, M. (2012). The Evolution of the Transatlantic Partnership. TRANSWORLD.

Garrison, B. (n.d.). THE SUEZ CRISIS. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from THE COLD WAR MUSEUM: http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/SuezCrisis1956.asp

Korski, D. (n.d.). Preventing Crises and Managing Conflicts: U.S.-EU Cooperation.

Korski, D., Serwer, D., & Chabalowski, M. (2009). A New Agenda for US-EU Security Cooperation. FRIDE.

Schwenninger, S. R. (2007, January). The United States and the Emerging Powers. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from New America Foundation: http://newamerica.net/node/8639

Singal, J., Lim, C., & Stephey, M. (2010, March 19). March 2003 Shock and Awe. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from TIME: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1967340_1967342_1967398,00.html

WEISMAN, S. R. (2003, Jnauary 24). Refusal by French and Germans to Back U.S. on Iraq Has Undercut Powell's Position. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/24/international/middleeast/24POWE.html

Yew, L. K. (2007, January). The United States, Iraq, and the War on Terror. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from Foreign Affairs: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62266/lee-kuan-yew/the-united-states-iraq-and-the-war-on-terror