Johan Rosihan States Global Geopolitical Conditions Test Indonesia's Sovereignty

The issue of Indonesia potentially exiting the Board of Peace (BOP) has sparked attention from various quarters. Amid increasingly complex global geopolitical dynamics, Indonesia’s diplomatic steps are deemed necessary to be taken carefully, considering their impact on national economic stability, fiscal conditions, and food security.

This was stated by Johan Rosihan, Secretary of the PKS Faction in the MPR RI, in a written statement today. This Deputy Chairman of the MPR RI Budget Agency also emphasised that the issue needs to be addressed clearly and proportionately.

He reminded that not all global narratives have a strong institutional basis, yet they still require serious analysis.

“Every issue concerning Indonesia’s position in the geopolitical chessboard deserves in-depth study, as the impacts can reach economic, social sectors, and even national stability,” Johan said in the written statement on Wednesday (25/3/2026).

According to him, the world is currently entering a new phase marked by rising rivalries among major powers, fragmentation of global trade, and regional conflicts. This situation makes every diplomatic decision highly sensitive.

Indonesia, Johan continued, is in a strategic position in the Indo-Pacific region and serves as a crossroads of various global interests. Therefore, every step taken must consider long-term consequences.

“Indonesia is not on the sidelines but at the centre of global dynamics. Every decision will impact our position in the eyes of the world,” he stated.

Between Global Pressures and National Interests

The strong statement from Donald Trump regarding potential consequences if Indonesia exits the Board of Peace (BOP) reflects the changing character of international relations, which are increasingly transactional. In the current global dynamics, commitments between countries are no longer solely viewed as normative agreements but as instruments to safeguard each party’s economic and geopolitical interests.

This situation, Johan said, places Indonesia in a difficult position. On one hand, Indonesia needs to maintain good relations with strategic partners like the United States, which has significant influence in the global economic system.

On the other hand, Indonesia is also required to maintain sovereignty in determining the direction of its foreign policy.

“The greatest risk in this condition is getting trapped in narrow choices between submitting to global pressures or taking confrontational steps without careful calculation. Both options are deemed potentially detrimental to national interests, either in the form of sovereignty erosion or political and economic instability,” he explained.

In practice, Johan sees that many developing countries face similar dilemmas. They must navigate pressures from major powers while still preserving domestic policy space.

“Indonesia itself has historical capital through the free and active foreign policy principle pioneered since the Soekarno era,” he said.

However, that capital will only be effective if followed by consistency and firmness in determining priorities. National interests must be the primary compass, not merely short-term considerations influenced by external pressures.

“Every decision regarding participation or withdrawal from a global initiative must be based on the fundamental question of whether the step strengthens or weakens Indonesia’s position in the long term,” he stated.

Unseen Risks

According to Johan, global geopolitical dynamics can no longer be viewed solely as foreign policy issues. Developments in inter-country relations have proven to have direct impacts on fiscal conditions, including the structure of the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBN).

“When relations with strategic partners are disrupted, the impact is immediately felt in the trade sector. Declines in exports of flagship commodities can occur due to tariff or non-tariff barriers. For Indonesia, commodities such as agricultural products, fisheries, and their derivatives are highly dependent on global market access, making them vulnerable to changes in international trade policies,” he said.

In addition, geopolitical instability also has the potential to disrupt global supply chains. This condition can increase domestic production costs, especially due to reliance on imported inputs such as fertilisers, feed, and technology.

“These cost increases ultimately pressure business margins and risk lowering productivity in strategic sectors,” he explained.

From the monetary side, Johan highlighted pressure on the rupiah exchange rate as one of the main risks. Global uncertainty tends to trigger capital outflows, leading to exchange rate weakening.

“In such situations, the government often needs to allocate additional budgets to maintain economic stability,” he revealed.

Other implications include increased subsidy burdens, particularly in the food and energy sectors. Global price increases force the government to protect people’s purchasing power. However, the consequence is increasingly limited fiscal space for development financing.

According to him, every diplomatic decision has significant economic consequences.

“The government is demanded to carefully consider the geopolitical impacts on fiscal sustainability, to maintain the state’s ability to meet societal needs,” he stated.

The Most Vulnerable Sector

Johan assesses that food security is one of the sectors most vulnerable to global geopolitical dynamics. In normal conditions, international markets serve as a balancer when domestic production faces pressure.

However, amid geopolitical instability, that mechanism could instead become a new source of vulnerability.

“Disruptions in international relations can directly impact access to strategic food imports. Export restrictions by exporting countries