From Policy Entrepreneur to National Diplomatic Orchestrator
Modern state diplomacy is no longer as straightforward as it once was. Where foreign relations were previously synonymous with the foreign ministry and its diplomats, the reality today is far more complex. Contemporary diplomacy involves numerous actors simultaneously—the president, sectoral ministries, parliament, the business community, regional governments, and civil society.
Brian Hocking, a leading contemporary diplomacy scholar, characterises this shift as the “national diplomatic system.” In this system, diplomacy is no longer the monopoly of the foreign ministry, but rather the result of interactions among various actors within a national diplomatic community.
Within this context, the role of the foreign ministry itself has transformed. It is no longer the sole practitioner of state diplomacy. However, precisely because so many actors are involved, the foreign ministry retains an important position as director and connector of these various interests. Its primary task is to ensure that the various activities of national diplomacy move in one coherent strategic direction.
Indonesia’s diplomatic experience following the Reformation has demonstrated this role quite clearly. Greta Nabbs-Keller’s study of Indonesian foreign policy noted that under Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda, the Foreign Ministry not only implemented foreign policy but also served as a source of ideas and institutional renewal. In her analysis, Nabbs-Keller termed the Foreign Ministry during this period an “entrepreneur of new ideas and foreign policy practices.”
During this period, Indonesian diplomacy underwent several important innovations. The concept of “total diplomacy” was introduced to expand space for non-state actor involvement. Organisational reforms were undertaken to make the ministry more adaptive to global change. Public diplomacy was also strengthened to rebuild Indonesia’s international image as a democratic nation.
During this period, the Foreign Ministry emerged as a driver of national diplomatic change, not merely a bureaucracy implementing foreign policy.
However, in recent years, several foreign policy observers have offered various critiques regarding the direction of Indonesian diplomacy. Indonesian diplomacy is active across various international forums. However, some analysts assess that its strategic priorities have not always been clearly visible. Indonesia participates in many global platforms—ASEAN, G20, BRICS, and various other cooperation mechanisms—yet the relationship between these various platforms within a single national strategic framework has not always been systematically explained to the public.
Additionally, concerns have emerged that ASEAN no longer appears as clearly as before to be the primary anchor of Indonesian diplomacy. In the context of increasingly intense great power rivalry in the Indo-Pacific region, ASEAN remains viewed as an important instrument for Indonesia to maintain its strategic space.
Indonesia’s diplomatic dynamics are also characterised by strong presidential activism in foreign relations. The president’s presence at various international forums certainly gives Indonesia visibility. However, in a highly personalised presidential system, the foreign ministry risks becoming more reactive to presidential political dynamics rather than consistently building long-term diplomatic strategy architecture.
This debate must be viewed in the context of changes in the international system. International relations scholar Amitav Acharya describes the contemporary world as a “multiplex world.” The world is no longer dominated by one or two major powers, but rather characterised by multiple centres of power, overlapping institutions, and expanding networks of state and non-state actors.
In such a world, diplomacy becomes increasingly multi-actor and multi-layered. States must be able to operate across various arenas simultaneously—bilateral, regional, global, and transnational networks.
The concept of “dynamic resilience” introduced by Foreign Minister Sugiono is essentially an attempt to comprehend an increasingly uncertain global reality. Indonesian diplomacy must remain adaptive and resilient in responding to rapid geopolitical change.
However, this concept will only be effective if supported by institutional capacity capable of orchestrating national diplomacy properly.
In an increasingly complex world, diplomatic strength is no longer determined by who appears most frequently on the international stage. It is determined by who is most capable of connecting various national actors and orchestrating state interests intelligently.
This is where the true role of the foreign ministry is tested.