Indonesia Risks Vanishing from the World Stage Due to the Iran War
President strongly condemns the heinous actions that led to the deaths of TNI soldiers.
Amid rising global tensions due to the Iran vs US and Israel war, threats to Indonesia extend beyond economic aspects such as increases in world oil prices or pressures on the state budget. A deeper threat comes from something rarely realised: the loss of Indonesia’s position in global attention.
This was revealed by researcher from the Centre for Political and Social Studies at UHAMKA and Founding Director of Global Trust Intelligence (GTI), Emaridial Ulza, who examined the impact of the Middle East conflict on Indonesia. The report shows that Indonesia is currently facing a condition known as the strategic invisibility trap.
According to Emaridial, this condition does not mean Indonesia is perceived negatively by the international community, but rather that it is entirely absent from global perceptions. In a world filled with rapid information flows, countries that do not appear in global narratives tend to be disregarded, both in terms of investment, diplomacy, and strategic decision-making.
He explains that from the perspective of international marketing and collective decision neuroscience, global market players and the international public do not merely respond to data, but are more influenced by narratives that frequently appear and are embedded in memory.
“In this context, countries that do not actively build their own narratives risk losing attention, even if they possess significant economic strength,” he stated on Monday (6/4).
This phenomenon is clearly evident when compared to Iran. Despite being embroiled in a major conflict, Iran remains present on various global stages and is part of the world’s conversations.
Meanwhile, Indonesia, with a population of over 280 million and relatively stable economic growth, does not emerge as an actor in important global narratives.
According to Emaridial, this condition is not merely an issue of image, but has direct impacts on the economy. When reputation, narrative, and perception are disrupted simultaneously, the effects will be felt in the form of delayed foreign investment, increased borrowing costs, and potential capital outflows from the country.
On the other hand, the report also highlights the economic pressures currently facing Indonesia through the concept of the Keynesian Triple Squeeze, a situation where the three main economic pillars—employment, interest rates, and liquidity—face pressure simultaneously.
This condition is assessed as different from previous crises because no sector can function as a buffer.
In addition to economic pressures, the report identifies broader potential geopolitical impacts. The global energy crisis resulting from the Middle East conflict is seen to be pushing ASEAN countries to negotiate with China from a weaker position in the South China Sea.
This shift has the potential to affect regional security balances, including Indonesia’s strategic areas like Natuna. Ironically, amid these various pressures, Indonesia actually possesses several globally recognised advantages. Among them is the success in collecting digital economy taxes, placing Indonesia in the world’s top three, as well as the Free Nutritious Meals programme, which is one of the largest human capital investments in the region.
However, according to Emaridial, these advantages have not been effectively communicated at the global level. He emphasises that in the current era, narrative is no longer just a complement, but a factor determining a country’s economic direction. When a country fails to define itself, the world will not see it as an important actor.
The report was compiled using the Global Trust Intelligence (GTI) framework, an analytical approach that integrates international marketing, neuroscience, non-military resilience, and Keynesian economics to examine inter-issue connections often overlooked in conventional analysis.
“In a world that is increasingly competitive in narratives, Indonesia is faced with the choice of remaining a spectator in global conversations or beginning to build a position as an actor that is taken into account. Because in today’s global system, what is not seen risks being considered non-existent,” he concluded. (E-3)