Indonesia, a vast archipelago with more than 17,000 islands and 281 million people, is often overlooked in global geopolitics despite its immensely important strategic position in the 21st century. As the world’s fourth-most populous nation and the largest Muslim-majority democracy, Indonesia isn’t just a passive observer—it’s a regional powerhouse trying to strike a delicate balance between two giants, China and the United States. But in its attempts to navigate these turbulent waters, the country faces a fundamental question: Can Indonesia remain true to its principles while also preserving its economic and security interests?
The Tightrope Between China and the U.S.
Indonesia’s economy is increasingly powered by Beijing. China is Indonesia’s largest trading partner, pumping billions into infrastructure projects through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). One of the most high-profile examples is the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway—marketed as a symbol of progress but, to critics, a concerning sign of increasing dependency on the CCP, dependency that will not come without future costs.
China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea has frequently brought it into conflict with Indonesia, particularly in the Natuna Islands, where illegal fishing by Chinese vessels continues to test Jakarta’s patience. In response, Indonesia has increased military patrols within its maritime exclusive economic zone, but has stopped short of direct confrontation. The reality is simple: Jakarta needs Beijing’s investment, but it doesn’t want to be swallowed by it.
At the same time, the United States remains a vital security partner. Washington has strengthened its military ties with Indonesia, conducting joint training programs and providing defense assistance. The U.S. has also encouraged Indonesia to take a firmer stance against China’s territorial claims, but Jakarta remains hesitant.
The moral question emerges—should Indonesia prioritize economic security even if it means turning a blind eye to China’s aggressive behavior? Or should it take a stand, risking economic retaliation? It’s a dilemma without easy answers.
ASEAN, Stability, and the Limits of Diplomacy
Indonesia, as the most populous nation in Southeast Asia, has long prided itself as the unofficial leader of ASEAN, championing regional stability through dialogue rather than confrontation. But the cracks are showing.
The ongoing crisis in Myanmar is a glaring example. Following the military coup in 2021, ASEAN attempted to enforce a peace deal known as the Five-Point Consensus, with Indonesia leading the charge. But the ruling junta in Myanmar ignored every attempt at negotiation, leaving ASEAN looking weak and ineffective. Jakarta found itself stuck between upholding its diplomatic principles based on nonaggression and the reality that this approach did little to help those suffering in Myanmar.
ASEAN’s divisions extend to the South China Sea as well. While the Philippines and Vietnam have been more adamant in their opposition to China’s maritime expansion, other ASEAN members—like Cambodia and Laos—are more than happy to side with Beijing in exchange for economic benefits. As the largest economy in the bloc, Indonesia is expected to be a unifying force, but its cautious approach has come to be seen as a sign of indecisiveness than anything.
At what point does diplomacy become an excuse for inaction? And how long can Indonesia claim to be a regional leader if it’s unwilling to take bold steps?
The Ethics of Indonesia’s Foreign Policy
Indonesia’s long-standing doctrine of Bebas dan Aktif (Free and Active) emphasizes independence from great-power influence. In practice, this means avoiding taking strong sides—a policy that has served Indonesia well in the past. But in today’s polarized world, remaining neutral is becoming increasingly difficult.
Consider Indonesia’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While many Western nations swiftly condemned Russia, Jakarta maintained its stance of neutrality. President Joko Widodo even visited both Moscow and Kyiv, positioning Indonesia as a peacemaker. Yet, many saw this neutrality as moral passivity—how can Indonesia claim to support peace while refusing to condemn such blatant aggression?
A similar contradiction arises with China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims. Despite outcry from Indonesian civil society and religious leaders, the government has largely remained silent, careful not to upset its biggest trading partner. For a country that often speaks about Islamic solidarity and human rights, the lack of action raises eyebrows.
Jakarta’s argument is always the same—pragmatism. Engaging with all sides ensures stability. But at what cost? Is there a point where pragmatism becomes hypocrisy? Pragmatism is well and good, but it begs the question of pragmatism towards what ends?
The Road Ahead
Indonesia’s foreign policy challenges aren’t going away anytime soon. If anything, the pressure will only grow stronger.
To maintain its strategic autonomy while protecting its interests, Jakarta must make some difficult choices:
- Diversifying Economic Partnerships – While China will remain a major player, Indonesia needs to deepen trade ties with other regional powers like Japan, South Korea, and India. This reduces dependency and provides leverage when negotiating with Beijing.
- Strengthening ASEAN Leadership – Jakarta can’t afford to be a passive leader. A firmer stance on Myanmar and a more coordinated ASEAN approach to the South China Sea could boost its credibility. If ASEAN is to remain relevant, Indonesia must take charge.
- Aligning Rhetoric with Action – If Indonesia wants to be seen as a moral leader, it must start acting like one. That means being consistent in standing up for human rights, whether in Myanmar, Ukraine, or Xinjiang. Selective morality undermines credibility.
- Modernizing Its Defense Posture – A stronger national defense strategy, combined with enhanced partnerships with Australia, France, Japan, and the U.S., would send a clear message that Indonesia is capable of protecting its own interests.
Indonesia’s Defining Moment
As the world grows more divided, Indonesia’s balancing act is becoming increasingly precarious. It must choose between continuing to play the role of the neutral mediator or taking a stand on the global stage. The decisions made in the coming years will determine whether Indonesia remains a cautious middle power or emerges as a true leader in the Indo-Pacific.
Will Jakarta find a way to maintain its independence without sacrificing its morality? Or will it become just another pawn in the game of global superpowers? The answer will not only shape Indonesia’s future but the stability of Southeast Asia as a whole.
One thing is certain—Indonesia is at a crossroads, and the path it chooses will echo far beyond its borders.
