Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsCan't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsAs the world's fourth-largest country and one of the largest Muslim-majority democracies, Indonesia’s pluralist traditions, rich cultural heritage and educational challenges all contribute to the themes at the heart of UNESCO’s mandate.
When the United States, under President Donald Trump, announced its decision to leave UNESCO for the second time in less than a decade, the international reaction was a mix of déjà vu and disappointment.
The reasons given by the Trump administration, including criticism of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and accusations of bias against Israel, echoed past grievances from previous US administrations. However, the true message was clearer: The US once again treats multilateral institutions as expendable in the face of domestic political posturing.
This regrettable decision shouldn't surprise anyone. What should concern us more is the vacuum it creates and the questions it raises about who will step up to lead in institutions like UNESCO. Several countries, such as France and China, have expressed readiness to support UNESCO.
For Indonesia, the answer should be clear: This is a moment to stop merely claiming "bridge-building" as a foreign policy identity and start actively practicing it in spaces where it genuinely matters.
In recent years, Indonesia has increasingly embraced the idea of being a "bridge-builder" in international affairs. By joining BRICS, participating in Group of 20 summits as a voice for the Global South, and with President Prabowo Subianto's active engagement with leaders from opposing geopolitical blocs, Indonesia signals its ambition to connect rather than choose sides.
However, to be effective, bridge-building must go beyond symbolism and rhetoric. As Indonesia steps into platforms like BRICS, it must carefully balance new partnerships with its enduring commitments to democratic values and multilateral principles. Without a clear articulation of goals and priorities, there's a risk that this bridge-building could become contradictory, especially in an era of heightened geopolitical rivalry.
Perhaps the issue isn't the metaphor of bridge-building itself, but its application. What if we're simply applying it in the wrong arena? Instead of pursuing bridge-building primarily in high-stakes geopolitical arenas, Indonesia could channel this identity into multilateral institutions like UNESCO, where its values, experience and diplomatic capital can have a more direct and constructive impact.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.
Quickly share this news with your network—keep everyone informed with just a single click!
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!
Get the best experience—faster access, exclusive features, and a seamless way to stay updated.