Vol. VII / No. 4 | March 2026
Authors:
Ardhitya Eduard Yeremia Lalisang – Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, Universitas Indonesia; member of “South Solidarity, Development, and Transformation for Global Justice” Research Cluster
Summary
Indonesia’s recent foreign policy conduct under President Prabowo reveals three alarming tendencies. Jakarta orbits the major powers. It puts aside the Palestinian voice by joining the Trump-led Board of Peace. It treats its domestic audience as something to be managed, rather than heard. Together, these reproduce coloniality both externally and internally. This is a troubling departure from Indonesia’s own founding principle: anti-colonialism. Three alternatives are proposed: de-centering major powers to reclaim space for ASEAN and South-South partnership, articulating a durable strategy for contributing to Palestinian freedom, and treating the people as stakeholders rather than spectators. Imagining these alternatives is an act of refusal to be dominated by the government’s overwhelming discourse about what the country’s foreign policy can and cannot be.
Keywords: Indonesia’s foreign policy, anti-colonialism, decolonial approach, coloniality.
Not many countries enshrine their anti-colonial stance in their constitution. Indonesia is an exception for putting that in its very first sentence. It says that independence is the right of all nations and that colonialism must be abolished. As the host of the 1955 Asia-Africa Conference, anti-colonial solidarity further became central to Indonesia’s foreign policy profile. What has been happening lately in how Jakarta conducts its foreign policy is a troubling departure.
Under President Prabowo, Indonesia’s foreign policy has been primarily oriented toward the major powers. Bilateral exchanges with China, Russia, France, Australia, and now the United States crowd the diplomatic calendar. President Prabowo appears keen to position Indonesia among the strong, as if recognition from the centre of global power is what makes this country matter.
Indonesia has joined the Trump-led Board of Peace. It accepted the invitation to sit at a table where external powers decide the future of Palestine without a single Palestinian present. It participated in someone else’s project without a clear strategy of its own. There is no roadmap for what Jakarta would do within the Board to walk with Palestinians toward their freedom. The approach seems to be: join first, figure out the rest later.
This, among other things, is why the decision to join the Board has drawn public criticism. Defending the decision, the government says foreign policy requires discretion and that not everything can be disclosed. President Prabowo further responded by explaining his decision to former foreign ministers, academics, experts, and Muslim leaders. The people, meanwhile, were left as spectators rather than stakeholders. They watched how most of those intermediary elites eventually spoke in favour of the government’s position after the meeting.
Taken together, these amount to a foreign policy that reproduces colonial structures both externally and internally. Jakarta put aside the Palestinian voice by surrendering its own voice to Washington, while seeking to silence dissenting internal voices by approaching the intermediary elites.
What would an alternative look like? I offer three proposals.
First, de-center the major powers. Relations with great powers matter and will continue to matter. However, Jakarta should not let them define the horizon of Indonesia’s foreign policy. There is ample room for deepening the ASEAN community, engagement with fellow developing nations and expanding South-South partnerships. Indonesia’s external affairs are too vast and its potential too great to be reduced to managing relationships with major powers. To that end, Indonesia has to reclaim the space that the gravitational pull of major powers has crowded out.
Second, articulate a clear strategy for how Indonesia contributes to Palestinian freedom. Indonesia’s consistent voting at the United Nations, humanitarian assistance, and refusal to recognise Israel are not nothing. However, after decades of invoking the Palestinian cause, Jakarta must have more than rhetoric. Jakarta should have a durable roadmap that is not hostage to the impulses of whoever sits in the presidential palace, and that reflects the constitutional commitment enshrined in the founding principles of the republic.
Third, treat the people as stakeholders. Jakarta should explain the reasoning behind foreign policy decisions directly to the people. In this regard, press conferences alone are insufficient without an acknowledgement that the people have a legitimate claim on how their country positions itself in the world. Channels should be open for civil society to also shape Indonesia’s foreign policy conduct.
These are proposals for attitudinal change. It is worth noting that attitudinal change alone will not dismantle the unequal power structure in which Indonesia is positioned globally, and in which the governing elites are positioned vis-à-vis the people internally. But this is where the work begins.
More work is needed to imagine an alternative outlook when the present insists there is none. It is an act of refusal to be dominated by the government’s overwhelming discourse about what the country’s foreign policy can and cannot be.
Remember, the first sentence of the constitution was an act of imagination. It was written when Indonesia was still fighting for its own survival. If the founders of Indonesia could imagine the abolition of colonialism from a position of weakness, Indonesia can certainly demand it from a position of independence.
Indonesia was once a champion of anti-colonial struggle. Today, the country is sleepwalking into reproducing coloniality at home and abroad. The least we can do is wake up and ask why.
Acknowledgement
This piece is the author’s reflection following participation in the 2026 Association of Asian Studies (AAS) Conference. The author is grateful to all those whose stimulating conversations and talks throughout the conference informed this writing. The views expressed here, however, remain solely the author’s own.