National Dignity and Status: Indonesia as a Great Nation

With great power comes great responsibility.

— Voltaire

Indonesia’s foreign policy under President Prabowo Subianto has recently faced considerable criticism from various quarters. Indonesia’s joining the Board of Peace (BoP), perceived defeats in trade negotiations with the United States, Indonesia’s lenient stance on American and Israeli aggression towards Iran, and Prabowo’s offer to mediate the conflict have all generated controversy domestically.

Many observers view Prabowo’s foreign policy as error-prone and imprudent, sacrificing principles and national interests. Specifically regarding Indonesia’s role in the Iran conflict, his offer to serve as mediator is seen by many as unrealistic given Indonesia’s weak bargaining position on the international stage. This is compounded by ground conditions that preclude negotiations, as tensions remain elevated.

In such circumstances, many have suggested Indonesia should withdraw from the BoP to avoid being held hostage to American and Israeli interests. Others argue Indonesia should focus solely on its own national interests, with some suggesting Indonesia should be “realistic” about its capacity as a “small nation” with limited global influence and instead concentrate on securing itself amid uncertain international dynamics.

A Great Nation

Historically, Indonesia has never been regarded as a small nation. No Indonesian president has employed this terminology to describe Indonesia’s identity within the international hierarchy. Prior to independence proclamation, founding fathers agreed that the Indonesia they would establish would not be a small or medium-sized nation, but a great nation.

Mohammad Yamin, one of the architects of independent Indonesia, in his speech at the first session of BPUPKI discussing the state’s foundations, referred to Merdeka Indonesia as a “third nation”. For Yamin (and also endorsed by Sukarno), the “first nation” and “second nation” referred to the Srivijaya and Majapahit empires. The establishment of the Indonesian state was viewed as a continuation of these two empires.

This identity as a great nation became evident when Indonesia initiated the Asian-African Conference (KAA) in 1955. Indonesia did not merely play an administrative role in an international-level event. Rather, through the KAA, Indonesia made a significant contribution to the international order of that time. Sukarno described Indonesia’s role in the international world as a “beacon” for countries of the Global South.

Indonesia’s greatness was not demonstrated through military or economic might, but through moral force to reorganise international relations. The KAA proved that Indonesia could make history, not by imitating the West, but by creating new forms that were more humane, warmer, and more liberating (Latif, 2025:561).

Roeslan Abdulgani stated that through this forum Indonesia had contributed “mental-spiritual and intellectual jewels of universal international value” (Abdulgani, 1980:150).

During the New Order period, this belief in being a great nation did not wane, although Suharto at that time focused more on economic development than foreign policy. We certainly cannot forget Indonesia’s contribution in championing the concept of “archipelagic outlook” (wawasan nusantara) on the international stage.

Hasjim Djalal, one of the Indonesian diplomats behind this effort, stated that international recognition of the “archipelagic outlook” concept demonstrated Indonesia’s most important contribution to the development of contemporary international law (Djalal, 2010).

We may also not forget Suharto’s ambition to master space technology in the 1970s with the launch of the Palapa satellite. When Palapa A1 satellite was successfully launched and orbited above the Indian Ocean on 8 July 1976, Indonesia became the third nation in the world to operate a satellite besides the United States and Canada.

This project was motivated by Suharto’s ambition to continue the vision of Gajah Mada in uniting the archipelago. As Gilady (2018) noted, a nation’s mastery of “Big Science” is one way of demonstrating great nation status.

When reform took hold, Indonesia’s identity as a great nation underwent reconstruction. Ideological and cultural aspects began to take centre stage. During Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration, the identity as “the world’s third-largest democracy” ran in parallel with being “the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation”. For Yudhoyono, Indonesia’s success in combining democracy with cultural pluralism was proof of Indonesia’s greatness. Indonesia was dubbed an “archipelago of peace”.

The claim of great nation status was stated explicitly when Joko Widodo (Jokowi) became president. Jokowi several times stated that as a great nation, Indonesia must sit as an equal with other great nations.

He said this when describing his seating position at the 2014 APEC summit, where Indonesia sat flanked by China, Russia, and the United States. This discourse demonstrates that the term “great nation” is not always synonymous with military or economic might.

International Responsibility

Compared to other nations, perhaps Indonesia is the only country whose constitution explicitly mandates responsibility for maintaining an international order “based on independence, perpetual peace, and social justice”. This constitutional mandate suggests that Indonesian foreign policy is not solely aimed at pursuing national interests but also international interests.

This responsibility is a consequence of Indonesia’s identity as a great nation. Winston Churchill in his 1906 speech stated that great nations bear great responsibilities, medium nations bear modest responsibilities, and small nations bear little responsibility.