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.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsA diplomacy of purpose: Indonesia’s path in a fragmented world
Calls for credibility should be grounded in a full appreciation of the system as it operates, not just how it appears from the outside.
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!
Foreign Minister Sugiono speaks to the media on April 4 following the arrival of the coffins of three Indonesian soldiers killed while serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in Tangerang, Banten. (AFP/Yasuyoshi Chiba)
P
ublic scrutiny of foreign policy is not only inevitable, it is healthy. Yet the recent commentary in this newspaper, which suggests that Indonesia needs a “more credible foreign policy team,” and characterizes its diplomacy as impulsive, rests on a narrow reading of how diplomacy is actually conducted and how Indonesia has been positioning itself in a far more complex global landscape.
It would be easier, in some ways, to run a foreign policy that treats the absence of controversy as a measure of success. But it would not serve Indonesia’s interests in the world we actually live in. I have written before that Indonesia must build dynamic resilience in a fragmented world. That remains the frame within which our decisions should be read. President Prabowo Subianto has been equally clear: Indonesia must be a genuine participant in shaping the world’s direction, not a bystander to it. That is not impulsiveness. That is a considered strategic choice.
Our independent and active foreign policy has never meant holding Indonesia back from the most pressing issues of our time. It has always meant the freedom to pursue national interests through principled engagement, without aligning ourselves to any single power or bloc. When critics suggest that our recent positions on Palestine, trade or the South China Sea compromise this principle, I would respectfully argue the opposite. Each of these positions was shaped by a careful assessment of national interest and grounded firmly in international law.
Indonesia’s participation in the Gaza peace framework was not a concession to any external agenda. It was a measured step, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025) and developed through prior consultation among the Group of Eight. The principle behind it, Indonesia’s enduring commitment to Palestinian statehood through a Two-State Solution, has not changed. Our position in the South China Sea also remains anchored in UNCLOS, clearly and without ambiguity. Our trade discussions with the United States are ongoing negotiations, not concluded outcomes, and they are being conducted with the full weight of Indonesia’s national interest in mind.
What merits a clear response is the suggestion that the Foreign Ministry operates in confusion, that ambassadors lack direction or that career diplomats are demoralized. I take institutional feedback seriously, and I would be the first to acknowledge where adjustment is needed. However, that characterization does not reflect the reality of this ministry. Our direction is clear, and it is carried forward by career diplomats whose depth, professionalism and discipline underpin every substantive decision.
The Foreign Ministry has outlined its priorities clearly through the strategic guidance that is carried consistently across the system. It serves as a practical playbook that guides all diplomats, including the ambassadors, in their work. That is how the institution operates. When the process appears quiet, it should not be mistaken as a gap. The machinery is not broken; it is deliberately unobtrusive.
A more active President does not signify a weaker ministry. It calls for a ministry that operates with greater precision and speed, and that is a challenge this institution is facing. Diplomacy cannot be evaluated as though the Foreign Ministry stands apart from the strategic direction set by the President. It does not, and it should not. What matters is whether our decisions are well-calculated, consistent with international law and serve the national interest. That is the principle we hold ourselves to.
