Author: admin

(Muhamad Akbar – Purwokerto) The Soedirman Center for Global Studies (SCGS), a laboratory under the Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, successfully held the SCGS Training Program with the theme “Mastering Network Analysis for IR Research” on April 22–23, 2026. This event was held at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, and was attended primarily by International Relations students and lecturers.

This event invited Bimantoro Kushari Pramono, a Research Associate at Tenggara Strategic and a lecturer at Universitas Indonesia specializing in network analysis, as a guest speaker. The training focused on introducing network analysis as a methodological approach in international relations studies, using Gephi as a network analysis tool, and applying network analysis to understand global issues.

On the first day, participants were introduced to the basic concepts of network analysis as a paradigm of thought that emphasizes a rational approach to understanding social issues. The presenter explained that, from this perspective, the relationships between actors are key to understanding social structures and international dynamics. Additionally, the presenter discussed important foundational concepts such as the Six Degrees of Separation, the reciprocity of relationships between actors, and the tendency of actors to form groups based on shared values (a principle known as modularity). This approach enables researchers to identify patterns of relationships rather than looking at individual behaviors in isolation.

On the second day, the training continued with a simulation using the Gephi software as a network analysis tool. Participants were guided to understand various metrics in network analysis, such as density to assess network density, modularity to identify clusters, and various types of centrality used to determine the most influential actors within the network. Additionally, participants were introduced to the stages of data analysis, ranging from the analytics process to the interpretation of results, including descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, and prescriptive analyses.

In his explanation, Bimantoro emphasized that network analysis is becoming increasingly relevant in the study of international relations because it can explain the complexity of global interactions, which are no longer linear. This method offers advantages in identifying relationship patterns, key actors, and power dynamics that are often invisible through conventional approaches. Therefore, network analysis is not just a technical tool but also a conceptual framework that helps researchers understand global issues more comprehensively.

The event was conducted interactively, featuring active discussion and Q&A sessions throughout the training. Participants were able to explore both the concepts and practical applications of network analysis in their research. Through this program, SCGS aims to enhance the academic capacity of students and faculty while introducing more innovative research methods in international relations.

Purwokerto – Soedirman Center for Global Studies (SCGS), a laboratory under the Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, successfully held the SCGS Masterclass Series #2 program on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, online via Zoom. The SCGS Masterclass Series is a guest lecture open to the public, featuring international experts who share their perspectives on global issues.

In this session, coinciding with Kartini Day, SCGS had the opportunity to present Prof. Kyoko Kusakabe from the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand. She is a professor at AIT and an expert in gender and development. In the SCGS Masterclass Series themed “Structural Vulnerability and the Infringement of Women’s Rights in Southeast Asian Labor Markets”, Prof. Kusakabe discussed the dynamics of the labor market in Southeast Asia, the structural vulnerabilities faced by women, and various myths that hinder gender equality in the professional world. 

In her presentation, Prof. Kusakabe highlighted a paradox in Southeast Asia, although women’s labor force participation rates are relatively high and their tertiary education levels surpass those of men in most ASEAN countries, they still lag behind in promotions to senior management levels and corporate boards. She emphasized that one of the main obstacles is social expectations that still require women to prioritize domestic work over men. 

Prof. Kusakabe dissected five myths that often prevent society from questioning gender injustice. One of them is the myth that household members always help each other harmoniously, which often masks the reality of domestic violence and inequality in decision-making within the family. She also pointed out that unpaid care work acts as a “tax” on women, preventing them from participating more fully in the formal economy. 

Furthermore, she argued that gender issues, including gender-based violence, should be viewed as a serious national economic problem rather than just a social welfare issue. Citing World Bank data, she explained that violence against women can cost a country’s GDP up to 3.7%. As a solution, Prof. Kusakabe proposed the “6R” strategy to address care work: Recognize, Reduce, Redistribute, Reward, Representation, and Revalue. 

The session continued with a lively Q&A after Prof. Kusakabe’s presentation. Participants took advantage of this opportunity to explore deeper into gender-sensitive public policies and structural challenges in their respective countries. Through this discussion, the SCGS Masterclass Series is expected to enrich the academic knowledge of the wider community, especially students, regarding global dynamics in women’s rights and economic justice in the modern era.

by: Nadya Aulia Hafsyah & Sahnes Setiara

Abstract

The discussion titled “Dialektika Chapter I”, organized by SCGS International Relations of Unsoed, examined the escalation of tensions between Iran, the United States, and Israel as a phenomenon better understood as an “invasion” rather than a conventional war. The analysis focused on Iran’s use of economic statecraft through the Strait of Hormuz, the anomaly of leadership in the United States that sidelines the role of the legislative branch, as well as strategies of proxy warfare and the exploitation of Kurdish ethnic issues. This report summarizes the contributions and perspectives of all participants in the discussion in assessing the systemic risks that could emerge if a regime change were to occur in Iran.

Introduction to the Issue and Historical Roots

Rifka Amalia opened the discussion by emphasizing that the current situation is more accurately described as an invasion rather than a war, given the power imbalance between the actors involved. She traced the historical roots back to 1953, referring to Operation Ajax conducted by the CIA and the United Kingdom to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in order to secure control over Iranian oil resources. Dias Pabyantara reinforced this argument by stating that the term “war” is often used to frame what is essentially a conflict or invasion driven by the aggressiveness of the United States and Israel. Regarding domestic politics in the United States, Nadya provided a crucial insight into the Senate’s role and how internal political dynamics shape U.S. foreign policy toward Iran. Ultimately, the Senate approved the U.S. invasion of Iran.

Economic Statecraft and Energy Instruments

Rifka explained Iran’s strategy of utilizing the Strait of Hormuz as an instrument of economic statecraft. By potentially disrupting global energy routes, Iran could pressure oil-consuming countries to push the United States toward de-escalation. Hegar, Najib, and Ian added that the primary motivation of the United States remains energy security for its industrial needs, which explains why intervention in oil-rich countries has often become a recurring pattern in U.S. foreign policy. Dias further highlighted the phenomenon of a “Leadership Anomaly,” in which U.S. foreign policy becomes highly personalistic, frequently bypassing institutional checks, such as those by the Senate, in favor of the leader’s personal image and interests.

Proxy War and the Potential for Regime Change

The dynamics of proxy warfare also became a major topic of discussion. Bintang highlighted how external powers often utilize third parties to fight on their behalf in conflict zones, a strategy frequently employed by the United States to pursue its national interests. However, in this particular conflict, the United States faces difficulties in establishing a proxy war because it lacks support from other countries, including Spain. Initially, Danu pointed out the possibility that the United States seeks regime change in Iran. Ifa then raised a follow-up question about what the United States actually aims to achieve through such regime change and whether there are examples in the Middle East of similar actions.

Dias responded by referring to Afghanistan, which was previously invaded by the United States. According to him, the intervention significantly altered Afghanistan’s political practices, including the introduction of greater involvement of women in political life. Danu added another example from the Rojava model in Northern Syria, where Kurdish groups were armed and organized, including female militias, as a form of U.S. proxy force. Historically, such strategies have been used to create internal divisions within targeted states, including Iran, and to reshape the political culture of local societies. Rifka then questioned whether the Kurdish people would once again fall into the promise of a “special homeland” offered by the United States, or whether they would learn from the history of past betrayals.

Social Resilience and Internal Dynamics

Regarding social conditions, Nabil raised a question about whether a U.S. invasion would unify the Iranian population or instead trigger a new revolution. Ifa provided a deeper perspective on Iranian society’s resilience. She recounted information from an Indonesian individual currently in Tehran, who reported that the situation in the city remained stable, with no signs of mass panic and daily life continuing as usual. She further explained that although Iran is a multicultural society, external threats such as invasion could actually become a turning point for national unity, particularly when combined with significant international support.

Strategic Implications

1. The risk of regime change as a threat to Iran’s stability.

The example of Afghanistan demonstrates how U.S.-led regime change in the Middle East has previously created power vacuums and significantly altered the political practices of local societies.

2. The Strait of Hormuz is an effective economic weapon.

Iran maintains control over a strategic chokepoint capable of generating global economic pressure, which could compel international actors to restrain U.S. aggression and push for the cessation of the invasion.

3. Personalistic dominance in U.S. foreign policy is sidelining the Senate.

The direction of U.S. foreign policy appears to be shaped more by the personal ambitions and egos of political leaders than by institutional checks from the Senate, which often includes members from the same political party as the president.

4. Proxy warfare and ethnic issues as persistent destabilization strategies.

The use of internal actors, such as Kurdish ethnic dynamics, may continue to be utilized by the United States as a strategy to weaken domestic cohesion, disrupt social conditions, and reshape the everyday political life of Iranian society.

The discussion concluded that the complexity of the Iran, United States, and Israel conflict involves a combination of historical grievances, energy politics, and the strong influence of individual leadership in shaping foreign policy decisions. If the path of invasion continues, the conflict carries extremely high humanitarian risks and could lead to broader regional instability.

(Muhammad Akbar – Purwokerto) Soedirman Center for Global Studies (SCGS), a laboratory under the Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, successfully held the first SCGS Masterclass Series program on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, online via Zoom. The SCGS Masters Series is a guest lecture open to the public, featuring international experts from various countries who share their perspectives on international issues.

In this session, SCGS had the opportunity to present Rasto Kuzel, a speaker from Slovakia. He is the founder and director of MEMO 98, a media and democracy monitoring organization. In the SCGS Masterclass Series themed “Anti-Propaganda Laws and Diplomacy: Lessons from Eastern Europe,” Kuzel discussed the dynamics of anti-propaganda regulations, the threat of disinformation, and the various challenges faced by democratic countries in maintaining a balance between information security and democratic freedom.

In his presentation, Kuzel highlighted that although countries in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia have different geographical characteristics and political conditions, both face similar challenges regarding disinformation in political and democratic processes. He emphasized that disinformation, foreign propaganda, political interference from abroad, and cyberattacks on elections are now increasingly common phenomena.

Kuzel believes that the current debate should focus on how countries can respond to these threats without compromising democratic principles. Many governments in various countries, especially in Eastern Europe, face a dilemma when formulating regulations to address disinformation and foreign propaganda. If not carefully designed, these regulations could potentially restrict freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and civil society.

To further explain these dynamics, Kuzel recounted the experiences of several countries in Eastern Europe, including Slovakia and Moldova. He highlighted that Slovakia faces threats of disinformation and propaganda from abroad, particularly from Russia. In response, the Slovakian government previously established a Hybrid Threats Monitoring Unit in several state institutions, including ministries and the prime minister’s office. This unit monitors propaganda narratives, identifies patterns of disinformation dissemination, and assists the government in developing effective communication strategies.

Furthermore, Kuzel explained that, in the face of disinformation, fact-checking is not enough; there must also be a prebunking strategy to identify potential propaganda narratives before they spread widely. In practice, this approach requires cooperation among the government, academics, and civil society to monitor developments in information. Besides Slovakia, he explained the situation in Moldova, which also faces digital propaganda intervention and illegal political funding. He argued that all democratic resilience can be strengthened through the “Resilience Triangle,” a collaboration among the government, civil society, and the international community to protect freedom of expression while combating disinformation.

The session continued with a lively Q&A after Kuzel’s presentation. Participants took advantage of this opportunity to ask many questions about disinformation, propaganda, and the regulatory challenges of maintaining democracy. Through this discussion, the SCGS Masterclass Series is expected to enrich the academic knowledge of the wider community, especially students, regarding global dynamics in democracy, media, and information security. This program also serves as a forum for knowledge exchange between Indonesian academics and international experts in understanding the various challenges to democracy in the digital age.