Presidential Visits and Global Diplomacy
Former President Abdurrahman Wahid, known as Gus Dur, often used humour to respond to public criticism regarding the frequency of his overseas visits. At the time, high-ranking officials, including the Chairmen of the MPR and DPR, questioned the intensity of the President’s foreign travels, sparking debates over the cost-effectiveness and benefits of such state visits.
During his approximately two-year presidency, Gus Dur visited nearly 50 countries, with total expenditures reaching tens of billions of rupiah. However, diplomacy cannot be measured solely by cost, especially when national sovereignty and integrity are at stake. Criticism of presidential travel is not unique to Indonesia; in many democracies, the foreign itineraries of heads of state are frequent subjects of public debate.
To understand the context, one must look at the challenges faced by Gus Dur during the early Reformasi era. When he took office in October 1999, Indonesia was in a fragile state. The economic crisis had not fully subsided, and the nation was reeling from the separation of East Timor. Concerns regarding a ‘domino effect’ were prevalent, with movements for referendums emerging in Aceh and Papua, and tensions regarding central-regional relations surfacing in oil-rich Riau.
In this climate, Gus Dur viewed international diplomacy as vital for maintaining national stability. His visits to Japan, China, India, the Middle East, South Africa, Europe, and the United States were aimed at building international confidence in Indonesia’s democratic transition. He attended significant forums such as the Non-Aligned Movement Summit, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and the World Economic Forum.
The density of his schedule even inspired jokes. In the book ‘Baret Jingga di Lingkar Istana’, former Presidential Military Secretary Marsdya TNI (Ret.) Budhy Santoso noted a common joke: ‘If someone says following President Gus Dur’s official trips means having breakfast in Paris, lunch in Rome, and dinner in Switzerland, that is a recurring joke.’
In contrast, President B.J. Habibie, whose term lasted less than two years, conducted only three overseas visits—to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam—all without overnight stays to avoid a power vacuum in the absence of a Vice President. Habibie focused on economic recovery and democratic opening, successfully strengthening the rupiah from around Rp 16,000 to approximately Rp 6,500 per US dollar.
Modern research supports the idea that leader mobility is a global phenomenon. A 2025 study by the Frederick S. Pardee Institute for International Futures at the University of Denver, titled ‘When Heads of Government and State (HOGS) Fly’, analysed over 100,000 trips by leaders from approximately 200 countries between 1990 and 2024. The findings show that world leaders are travelling more frequently; the average annual trips rose from 1,500 in the 1990s to over 2,700 in the 2010s.
This increase reflects how globalisation has changed international interaction. In an interconnected world, issues such as trade, investment, regional security, climate change, and geopolitics often require direct communication between leaders. The study also found that democratic nations tend to travel more frequently than autocratic ones.
Crucially, there is a correlation between the intensity of state visits and increased economic interaction between nations. Presidential travel is not merely ceremonial; it serves as an instrument to strengthen trade ties, attract investment, build political alliances, and enhance a nation’s bargaining power on the international stage. Furthermore, travel patterns can signal foreign policy priorities, much like how Donald Trump’s first official overseas visit to Saudi Arabia signalled US strategic priorities in the Middle East.