Kelompok 3


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Kelompok 3

  1. 1. KELOMPOK 3 Politik: Hegemoni
  2. 2. Anggota:  Afriandri Hilman  Dean Salisa  Gina Fujawati  Ibnu Husein  Rahmi Ayunda  Rian Antono  Rio Arsyad
  3. 3. Hegemonia Domination Hegemon Leader Hegeisthai To Lead
  4. 4.  Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group. Hegemony controls the ways that ideas become “naturalized” in a process that informs notions of common sense
  5. 5.  Hegemoni adalah sebuah rantai kemenangan yang didapat melalui mekanisme konsensus (consenso) dari pada melalui penindasan terhadap kelas sosial lain. (Gramsci, 1976:244).
  6. 6. United States US Policies in the UN ±80Vetos (1970-2012) With more than 40 related to issues in the Middle East • US, Nuclear, and Iran • Israeli attack on Gaza • Lebanon, Israel, and US
  7. 7. UNITED STATES of AMERICA The United States did not exercise its first veto until 1970, on a resolution regarding Southern Rhodesia, which is present-day Zimbabwe. Since then, it has used its veto 79 times, with more than 40 related to issues in the Middle East. The majority have been resolutions that have criticised the Israeli government or failed to condemn armed Palestinian factions in the same language as that being used for Israel. It used its last veto to block a resolution that would term Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territory "illegal" and demand a halt to all such actions. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, said her country "reject[ed] in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity", but the resolution "risk[ed] hardening the positions of both sides" and moving them away from negotiations. (source: 30761377.html)
  8. 8. U.S Policy in the Middle East “For many decades, successive U.S. administrations have defined U.S. national security interests in the Middle East as ensuring access to Middle East oil, containing any aspiring regional hegemonic powers, and limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction..” ( Cato Institute, 2009:539)
  9. 9. “Washington has tried to achieve this complex set of goals primarily through a network of informal security alliances— especially with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. ” ( Cato Institute, 2009:539)
  10. 10. “The collapse of the Camp David talks and the start of the second intifada, followed by 9/11, demonstrated the high costs Americans would have to pay to maintain a dominant position in the Middle East, both as a military power and as a promoter of the peace process.” ( Cato Institute, 2009:542)
  11. 11. “In the meantime, many Israelis and Palestinians are interested in keeping the United States entangled in the conflict. Few seem prepared to resolve the conflict on their own. However, the U.S. government does not have to sustain the same level of involvement in the conflict that it maintained during the cold war.” ( Cato Institute, 2009:545 )
  12. 12. US AID United States Agency for International Development :  Badan Independen dari pemerintah AS yang bertanggung jawab atas bantuan untuk bidang ekonomi, pembangunan, dan kemanusiaan untuk negara-negara lain di dunia.
  13. 13. Amerika Penyebaran Ideologi Hegemoni Usaha dan upaya pencitraan Conclusion
  14. 14. CATO INSTITUTE The Cato Institute is a non partisipan libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington D.C. the Institute states that it favours policies “that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace”. Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues, and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. Where ideology and science part company, Cato favors ideology, as shown by their open letter published in newspaper in 2009 disputing the state of the science on climate change.