Adhe Nuansa Wibisono
Universitas Paramadina

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Analisa Kritis Hegemonic Transition Theory dan Middle Power Diplomacy dalam Kebijakan Luar Negeri Indonesia pada Keanggotaan Board Of Peace Adhe Nuansa Wibisono; Tatok Djoko Sudiarto
Jurnal Ragam Pengabdian Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): Mei-Agustus, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Multidisciplinary Perspectiv
Publisher : Lembaga Teewan Journal Solutions

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62710/4hb5v791

Abstract

This article critically examines the application of Hegemonic Transition Theory and middle power diplomacy to explaining Indonesia's foreign policy of joining the Board of Peace (BoP), a body established by U.S. President Donald Trump in January 2026. Amidst the erosion of the liberal order and the shift toward multipolarity, Indonesia's decision sparked domestic debate. Some viewed it as a strategic pragmatic step, while others viewed it as a violation of the “free and active” principle. Using qualitative descriptive-analytical methods, coupled with literature review and source triangulation, this article finds Hegemonic Transition Theory relevant to explaining the systemic conditions driving Indonesia's move. The theory explains the pressures from unilateral hegemonic actions and the need for middle-power states to remain relevant amidst the uncertainty of global power transitions. Furthermore, the concept of middle power diplomacy enriches the analysis by explaining Indonesia's hedging and multi-alignment strategies. This research emphasizes the need for Indonesia to maintain a multi-alignment approach that makes the BoP one, not the only, diplomatic arena, while continuing to strengthen its networks in BRICS, the Non-Aligned Movement, and other multilateral forums.
Pseudo-ZOPA in Israeli–Palestinian Conflict Negotiations: A Positive Peace Critique of Technical Compromise Linda Noviyana; Adhe Nuansa Wibisono
Jurnal Nawala Politika Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): Jurnal Nawala Politika
Publisher : Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Udayana University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24843/jnp.v4i2.3741

Abstract

Israeli–Palestinian negotiations remain constrained by their limited capacity to address the roots of the conflict. This study examines how an apparently available space for compromise in Israeli–Palestinian negotiations can be evaluated through the concepts of the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) and positive peace. The central problem is to identify when a historically recurring space for compromise turns into a Pseudo-ZOPA, namely a bargaining space that appears productive but does not generate structural transformation. The study employs a qualitative approach based on library research, critical-conceptual analysis, and directed qualitative content analysis. Rather than presupposing that freedom of movement, access to holy sites, and prisoner releases are technical compromises, the study treats them as recurrent areas of proposed compromise and then tests them through three positive-peace indicators: reduction of structural injustice, expansion of political recognition, and contribution to conflict transformation. The analysis of Oslo II, Camp David 2000, the Annapolis 2007–2008 process, and recent ZOPA mapping demonstrates a distinction between substantive ZOPA that engages final-status issues but fails to be consolidated, and technical ZOPA that may reduce tensions without necessarily transforming the roots of conflict. The study concludes that Pseudo-ZOPA is useful for explaining compromises that appear procedurally productive but remain non-transformative for positive peace.