Commentary: Indonesia\u2019s foreign policy has a consultation problem<\/p>\n
From the Board of Peace to the Iran war, Indonesia\u2019s foreign policy\nis increasingly defined by decisions made before consultation, says an\nacademic.<\/p>\n
SURABAYA, Indonesia: Indonesia\u2019s decision to join the so-called Board\nof Peace initiative on post-war governance in Gaza in January\nimmediately triggered domestic debate. Critics questioned both the\ninitiative\u2019s credibility and Indonesia\u2019s willingness to send troops to\nGaza.<\/p>\n
The episode illustrates how Indonesia\u2019s foreign policy is\nincreasingly defined by decisions made before consultation, weakening\naccountability.<\/p>\n
As criticism intensified, the government invited civil society\nleaders, scholars and former officials to what was described as a\nconsultation meeting. Yet by then, the decision had already been\nannounced and defended internationally, leaving little scope for\nparticipants to shape the outcome.<\/p>\n
Consultation after a decision is explanation, not deliberation.\nGovernments will always try to explain their policies, but deliberation\nonly matters if it happens before commitments are finalised - when\ndifferent views can still influence the outcome. In this case,\nengagement largely followed public pressure, with the government opening\na dialogue with selected figures only after critics had raised concerns\nabout the initiative.<\/p>\n
A PATTERN OF CONDUCT<\/p>\n
This pattern of conduct has since continued. As tensions escalated in\nthe Middle East following military action by the United States and\nIsrael against Iran, Indonesia again faced scrutiny over its diplomatic\nposition. Jakarta adopted a cautious stance, offering to act as a peace\nbroker, while discussions about the Board of Peace were effectively\npaused.<\/p>\n
Facing growing domestic criticism, the government convened another\nhigh-level meeting involving former presidents, vice presidents, foreign\nministers and other senior political figures. Framed as a consultative\nexercise, the timing again raised questions. Consultation followed\ncontroversy, reinforcing the impression that the government was managing\nfallout rather than engaging in genuine deliberation.<\/p>\n
The same pattern reappeared when Prabowo invited journalists and\nexperts to his residence in Hambalang. Despite the presence of several\ncritical voices, the discussion centred on Prabowo explaining and\ndefending his decisions, a message later reinforced through video clips\npublished on social media.<\/p>\n
This pattern is not limited to the Board of Peace or the Iran\nepisode. Indonesia\u2019s joint development agreement with China was followed\nby public criticism and subsequent clarification, rather than broad\nconsultation beforehand. The Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common\nSecurity similarly raised questions once announced, with explanations\nfrom the government following public scrutiny.<\/p>\n
Aspects of Indonesia\u2019s defence arrangement with the United States\nhave also drawn criticism, particularly over provisions related to\nmilitary access and overflight. Official clarification was issued only\nafter concerns were raised. A similar dynamic is evident in trade\nnegotiations with the United States, where public debate and government\nexplanations followed initial announcements rather than informing\nthem.<\/p>\n
BLURRING THE LINES OF RESPONSIBILITIES<\/p>\n
This approach creates an awkward dynamic for those invited. Public\nfigures often participate in good faith, believing they are contributing\nto national debate - but they can become associated with decisions they\ndid not make. The burden of explanation shifts from the government to\nthose who participated in the consultation.<\/p>\n
Over time, this practice blurs lines of responsibility. Debate shifts\nfrom why a decision was made to how particular figures responded.\nIndependent voices become informal intermediaries between the executive\nand the public, lending legitimacy to decisions that were already made,\neven without explicit endorsement.<\/p>\n
Indonesia\u2019s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has long been known for its\ncareful policy preparation. Major diplomatic initiatives traditionally\npassed through extensive internal discussion within the ministry and\nacross government.<\/p>\n
Recent controversies suggest this process may be weakening. Confusing\nor inconsistent explanations indicate that established channels of\ndiplomatic deliberation may be increasingly bypassed or compressed. As\nforeign policy authority becomes concentrated in the executive,\nprofessional expertise risks being sidelined.<\/p>\n
This matters not only for domestic governance but also for\nIndonesia\u2019s role in the region. Jakarta has established diplomatic\ncredibility through consistency, caution and a consultative policy\nstyle, helping it build influence within ASEAN and beyond. If major\nforeign policy decisions become reactive, that credibility may\nerode.<\/p>\n
The internal debate over imposing a toll on Malacca Strait\nillustrates this risk. The initial remark from the Minister of Finance\nwas quickly followed by rejection from neighbouring countries, criticism\nfrom scholars and a rebuttal from the Minister of Foreign Affairs,\nbefore the Minister of Finance walked back the proposal.<\/p>\n
SOLUTIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT<\/p>\n
Yet these episodes also show that public debate in Indonesia remains\nactive. Critical commentary, academic discussions and civil society\npressure continue to prompt government engagement. The challenge is to\nensure that this engagement happens before decisions are finalised, not\nafter.<\/p>\n
One constructive step would be to strengthen institutional\ncoordination at the highest level of government. This does not require\ncreating new structures - such as the proposed National Security Council\n- which can increase bureaucratic complexity. Instead, existing\ncoordinating ministries should be used more effectively to ensure that\ndiplomatic, security and economic considerations are debated before\nmajor foreign policy commitments are made.<\/p>\n
Indonesia possesses capable diplomats, informed scholars and an\nengaged public - valuable resources for naviga<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/commentary-indonesias-foreign-policy-has-a-consultation-problem-1777935090", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }