TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Why Indonesia’s foreign policy direction lacks clarity
Believing that Indonesia can maintain a foreign policy approach that keeps “all doors open” with all partners is naive, particularly considering the intensifying geopolitical competition.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Outlining key agendas: Foreign Minister Sugiono speaks during the Foreign Minister's Annual Press Statement (PPTM) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Building, Jakarta, on Jan. 10. The Foreign Ministry is committed to continuing to strengthen Indonesia's position on the global stage by becoming a member of BRICS and is in the process of accession to be included in the membership of The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which affirms its active role in various world economic forums such as the G20, APEC, IPEF, MIKTA and the CPTPP. (Courtesy of Foreign Ministry/Courtesy of Foreign Ministry)
A
s part of the Foreign Ministry tradition, Foreign Minister Sugiono recently gave his yearly address to the media, diplomatic community and general Indonesian audience. He outlines the key foreign policy agendas and objectives of the sitting administration.
Given President Prabowo Subianto’s personal interest in international affairs and foreign policy, and the number of high-profile trips and visits the President has had with his foreign counterparts, this yearly address by the foreign minister was one to watch closely.
However, as we approach the 100-day mark of the Prabowo administration, Sugiono’s speech does not offer much by way of substantive ideas for Indonesia’s foreign policy and instead repeats much of the same old rhetoric.
As the government claims confidence and bravery in undertaking some foreign policy initiatives, there has been no clear-eyed assessment of what Indonesia’s core interests and priorities are, what diplomatic channels and capabilities to be used and explored to achieve those interests and what geopolitical consequences and realities it must consider before committing to certain foreign policy initiatives.
The current administration should portray how it interprets and implements the “free and active” principle in its foreign policy. A common mistake, Indonesian officials and policymakers often refer to the principle to justify certain foreign policy decisions.
In his speech, Sugiono simply said that the pursuit of BRICS membership is the realization of what it means to be free and active, which is against the tide of criticism that argues Indonesia is actually plunging itself into being entangled in a vortex of geopolitical rivalry.
Is the concept of “free and active” merely a principle or a means to an end, or an “end” in and of itself? If it is a means to an end, then what is the end goal of being free and active? What are our national interests that are being pursued by being free and active?
