The Twilight of American Hegemony and Indonesia's Reorientation of Position
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered a reflective statement at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. According to his view, the global order that has long revolved around US leadership is collapsing. Washington is seen as no longer leading through consensus but has instead converted trade instruments and coercion into tools of domination.
This criticism serves as a warning bell for many countries that the post-World War II geopolitical dynamics are at a low point, reflecting the end of an era where democracy and free markets were the main glue of international relations. The emerging reality instead shows a pattern of asymmetric transactional relationships.
Carney’s reflection is undoubtedly very important and strategic. First, Canada is part of the ‘Western inner circle’, a close ally of the United States and a NATO member. Criticism from Ottawa is not read as opposition but as an indication of internal consensus cracks. In global politics, signals from within are far more influential than external criticism.
Second, Canada’s position as a middle power provides moral and rational legitimacy. Developing countries and non-Western partners tend to view the Land of the Ice as an example of a ‘rational advanced country’—not too hegemonic, but with strong analytical capacity. When Canada begins to distance itself, it can justify other countries doing the same without appearing confrontational.
Third, Carney’s statement can accelerate the normalisation of ‘diversification’ attitudes. Countries that previously hesitated to reduce dependence on the US now have stronger political justification. In other words, this can be a trigger for shifts that have already been occurring quietly.
Paradox of Partnership and Erosion of Allies’ Sovereignty
Indeed, Canada is not alone. Several Western partner countries are beginning to show similar tendencies. France, for example, is openly promoting the idea of European strategic autonomy, just as Turkey is pursuing a more independent foreign policy direction. Recently, in the context of the US-Israel war against Iran, Spain has even taken a harder line by rejecting the US request to use its military base.
Many US partner countries are beginning to realise that dependence on a single power pole demands excessively high political and economic costs. Unilateral policies that ignore partners’ sovereignty have created cracks that are difficult to repair.
The involvement of many US partner countries often ends in counterproductive consequences. One of the most memorable precedents is the pressure on partner countries to provide military facilities to support the US in the invasion of Iraq under Saddam Hussein in 2003. That intervention not only left long-term instability in the region and drained economic resources and damaged social cohesion in many allied countries, but also sparked serious controversy regarding the legitimacy of international law.
On the other hand, US protectionist policies and unilateral sanctions create highly damaging domino effects. When the global financial system is used as a pressure instrument, partner countries often become the first victims of supply chain disruptions.
Economic dependence that was once seen as a guarantee of prosperity has now turned into a vulnerability gap. This situation gives rise to the urgency of ‘strategic autonomy’, where countries are beginning to strive for independence from Washington’s dictates. This collective awareness accelerates the world’s transformation towards multipolarity, where loyalty is no longer blind but more pragmatic.
A single cracked hegemony provides space for the emergence of regional powers that prioritise cooperation over ideological confrontation. Many countries are beginning to realise that diplomatic flexibility and risk diversification are the main keys to survival. The new world order is being tested by each nation’s ability to maintain the integrity of their sovereignty.
Indonesia’s Strategic Repositioning
Facing this twilight of hegemony, Indonesia is required to be an active subject in determining its navigational direction. The free and active foreign policy principle finds its urgent momentum as a compass to maintain national integrity amid the pulls of major interests. Indonesia must carry out agile diplomacy that does not get trapped in formal alliances, yet remains consistent with international law.
In the economic dimension, Indonesia’s main challenge is to strengthen sovereignty from external shocks through partnership diversification. Strategic steps such as strengthening cooperation with the Global South bloc and implementing Local Currency Settlement (LCS) are concrete responses to reduce dependence on dollarisation. This is a real effort to protect the national economy from fluctuations in foreign monetary policies.
Industrial downstreaming policies, for example, must also be viewed as a fundamental effort to increase national bargaining power in the global market. By no longer being merely a raw material supplier, Indonesia has a more dignified position in facing international trade rules. This economic independence becomes an important foundation so that Indonesia’s bargaining position is not easily dictated by the agendas of advanced countries.
In conclusion, strengthening ASEAN centrality becomes a crucial instrument for Indonesia to ensure that Southeast Asia remains a zone of peace. Indonesia must lead collective efforts to reject bloc divisions that could trigger new proxy conflicts. Through inclusive leadership, Indonesia has a great opportunity to formulate a new world order that is fairer, more stable, and respects the sovereignty of every nation.