What Can Indonesia Do When Conflict Becomes a New Normal?

Three months after the eruption of armed conflict between the United States and Iran, the global landscape remains shrouded in a thick fog of uncertainty. The thud of missiles and cyber-attacks has subsided, but the real war has shifted to the diplomatic arena, a rattled economy, and information flows rife with manipulation. Indonesia, as a great nation at a crossroads, cannot simply be a nervous spectator. The diplomacy limbo and ongoing uncertainty call on the strategic instincts of the country to rise, reassess its position, and take careful and bold action. Indonesia must promptly formulate steps that blend proactive diplomacy, smart management of soft power, and structural economic resilience. First, Indonesia ought to be able to play an active and balanced role due to its historically relevant heritage. Its status as the largest country in the Global South is not merely a demographic label. Indonesia is the initiator of the 1955 Bandung Conference and one of the driving forces of the Non-Aligned Movement. The principles of independence, solidarity among peoples formerly under colonial rule, and rejection of polarisation between great powers are the DNA of its foreign policy that has stood the test of time. In the post-war world that splits into blocs pro-West and anti-hegemony, Indonesia has a moral platform to be a bridge. The government should not hesitate to move forward, rekindling solidarity among developing countries now shaken by spikes in energy and food prices. Leadership at the Global South level is not only a right but an obligation arising from the mandates of the founders. Silence and waiting for the situation to ease would be a betrayal of the diplomatic capacity built over decades. Second, this conflict has shifted into a region very sensitive for Indonesia because the country does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. When the war narrative broadens and links Tehran to the dynamics of the Palestinian conflict, Indonesia’s position becomes unique. On one hand, solidarity with the Palestinian people’s struggle is a constitutional mandate. On the other hand, the absence of relations with Israel could become a stumbling block if Indonesia seeks to present itself as a mediator acceptable to all sides. Yet it is precisely here that the moral strength lies that can be leveraged. Indonesia can push for a peace solution in the Middle East not to be trapped in zero-sum games between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine blocs alone. Indonesia should steer its diplomacy to emphasise the root causes and push for a more permanent ceasefire in the region to be the main agenda, without getting caught in the tangle of bilateral relations that are intricate. Credibility as a friend of Palestine gives weight when Indonesia speaks at the United Nations, provided the message foregrounds justice and adherence to international law. Third and fourth, Indonesia actually possesses a remarkable repository of soft power and could be utilised more swiftly. Social media, as a battlefield of global perception, is a highly potent soft tool. Indonesia has hundreds of millions of active and discerning social media users. Humanitarian solidarity campaigns, peace narratives, and rallying support for peaceful resolutions can be disseminated massively through digital platforms. Diplomacy is no longer the preserve of diplomats in air-conditioned rooms, but also belongs to netizens who can influence international public opinion. The government must cleverly facilitate and steer this digital energy so that it does not become a provocation that is counterproductive. Beyond the digital sphere, Indonesia holds other soft power assets no less important. As the world’s 16th largest economy, the country with the largest Muslim population, the 12th largest contributor to UN peacekeeping, and the backbone of nearly 40 percent of global trade, Indonesia should not be a spectator. This weight in economy and demography is a trump card that could be exchanged for influence. Unfortunately, the response so far has often been slow and halting, as if all this capital has not been integrated into a single grand strategy. If all these elements are orchestrated, Indonesia’s voice could be far more influential in shaping the architecture of peace and regional stability. UN peacekeeping forces, for example, could become a symbol of Indonesia’s neutral and trusted presence. The largest Muslim population could serve as a bridge for civilisational dialogue that cools tensions in religious sentiment caused by war. All this is a form of diplomatic currency whose value is immeasurable. Fifth, the roar of war from afar is quietly undermining the domestic foundations in a way that kills gradually. Indonesia’s fiscal and monetary policies are feeling the tremors directly. Global uncertainty drives capital into safe-haven assets, weakens the rupiah, and forces the central bank to continue tightening liquidity. On the fiscal side, energy subsidies are swollen due to international oil prices surging wildly following disruption of supply in the Hormuz Strait. The government is in a difficult position. Room for stimulus is extremely limited because the budget deficit must be kept tightly. Negative outlooks from rating agencies are starting to appear, probing every gap in Indonesia’s ability to weather the storm. In this context, carelessness in policy design could be fatal. Indonesia must carefully prioritise, cut non-essential spending, and delay flagship projects that do not have an immediate impact on price stability and employment. Sixth and seventh, the war that disrupts global energy supplies also opens paradoxical opportunities not to be missed. Commodities