The Jakarta Post
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 resultsWhen diplomacy loses its place in policymaking
Indonesia does not lack spokespersons. What it is missing is diplomacy as the center of gravity of its foreign policy.
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!
A man uses his mobile phone in front of a reflection of an electronic board displaying stock prices at the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) building in South Jakarta on Oct. 14, 2026. (JP/Iqro Rinaldi)
T
wo seemingly unrelated developments: forest and land fires, and MSCI’s threat to downgrade Indonesia’s stock market to standalone market status. Upon closer reflection, the two refer to the same underlying problem: the weakening of diplomacy as an instrument by the government.
Forest and land fires are not merely domestic environmental problems; they have cross-border consequences that also threaten Indonesia’s regional reputation and carry economic costs. Similarly, the pressure from MSCI is not simply a technical issue for the capital market. It also reflects international perceptions of Indonesia’s policy credibility, government and investment climate.
Both issues should be managed through coordinated diplomatic channels, rather than through sporadic statements by officials or groups around the seat of power who are technically operating outside of the established diplomatic practices and protocols.
Indonesia does not lack spokespersons. What it is missing is diplomacy as the center of gravity of its foreign policy. Historically, the Foreign Ministry has served a distinctive function that cannot be easily replaced, regardless of who occupies the presidency. The ministry has a mandate to balance Indonesia’s long-term strategic interests as a middle power, which is maintaining constructive relations, global peace and acceptance within the international community, with shorter-term domestic priorities, such as boosting economic growth, reducing poverty and improving education, which may at times conflict with the interests of other countries. Whoever the president may be, the ministry is responsible for safeguarding the direction and coherence of foreign policy. When this function is not delegated to the ministry, diplomacy becomes an ad-hoc reaction to external pressures.
In the tradition of modern states, diplomacy is not merely about issuing protests or defending national positions in international forums. It is a mechanism for managing tensions, preserving trust and ensuring that domestic decisions do not undermine a country’s strategic position abroad. The Foreign Ministry matters not because it is the only ministry that speaks on international affairs, but because it is responsible for coordination and continuity. While other ministries and officials enrich international engagement through specialized cooperation, the ministry remains the foundational pillar for diplomacy as it is uniquely endowed with the core diplomatic authority to officially represent and navigate a nation’s interests on the global stage.
ASEAN offers an example. Indonesia has faced considerable pressure over transboundary haze yet has continued to seek ASEAN cohesion while preserving its standing as a major regional country worthy of respect. These efforts have not always succeeded fully, but they demonstrate how diplomacy can be used to nurture long-term relationships rather than merely deflect short-term criticism. When statements are made but fall outside established diplomatic channels and protocols, the signals sent to international partners become inconsistent. Other countries and market participants may interpret such inconsistency as a source of uncertainty.
Indonesia has faced circumstances far worse, yet it has historically maintained a degree of diplomatic restraint. Without in any way normalizing authoritarian rule, it is worth acknowledging that even the undemocratic New Order government sought to address international pressure over Timor-Leste and Papua through diplomatic engagement. Indonesia has a tradition of treating diplomacy as a primary instrument for dealing with external pressures. Such a tradition is difficult to discern in the country’s current approach.
