Commentary: Indonesia’s foreign policy has a consultation problem

From the Board of Peace to the Iran war, Indonesia’s foreign policy is increasingly defined by decisions made before consultation, says an academic.

Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST Tap here to return to FAST
FAST

SURABAYA, Indonesia: Indonesia’s decision to join the so-called Board of Peace initiative on post-war governance in Gaza in January immediately triggered domestic debate. Critics questioned both the initiative’s credibility and Indonesia’s willingness to send troops to Gaza.

The episode illustrates how Indonesia’s foreign policy is increasingly defined by decisions made before consultation, weakening accountability.

As criticism intensified, the government invited civil society leaders, scholars and former officials to what was described as a consultation meeting. Yet by then, the decision had already been announced and defended internationally, leaving little scope for participants to shape the outcome.

Consultation after a decision is explanation, not deliberation. Governments will always try to explain their policies, but deliberation only matters if it happens before commitments are finalised - when different views can still influence the outcome. In this case, engagement largely followed public pressure, with the government opening a dialogue with selected figures only after critics had raised concerns about the initiative.

A PATTERN OF CONDUCT

CNA Games

Guess Word
Crack the word, one row at a time

Buzzword
Create words using the given letters

Mini Sudoku
Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser

Mini Crossword
Small grid, big challenge

Word Search
Spot as many words as you can
Show More
Show Less

This pattern of conduct has since continued. As tensions escalated in the Middle East following military action by the United States and Israel against Iran, Indonesia again faced scrutiny over its diplomatic position. Jakarta adopted a cautious stance, offering to act as a peace broker, while discussions about the Board of Peace were effectively paused.

Facing growing domestic criticism, the government convened another high-level meeting involving former presidents, vice presidents, foreign ministers and other senior political figures. Framed as a consultative exercise, the timing again raised questions. Consultation followed controversy, reinforcing the impression that the government was managing fallout rather than engaging in genuine deliberation.

The same pattern reappeared when Prabowo invited journalists and experts to his residence in Hambalang. Despite the presence of several critical voices, the discussion centred on Prabowo explaining and defending his decisions, a message later reinforced through video clips published on social media.

This pattern is not limited to the Board of Peace or the Iran episode. Indonesia’s joint development agreement with China was followed by public criticism and subsequent clarification, rather than broad consultation beforehand. The Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security similarly raised questions once announced, with explanations from the government following public scrutiny.

Aspects of Indonesia’s defence arrangement with the United States have also drawn criticism, particularly over provisions related to military access and overflight. Official clarification was issued only after concerns were raised. A similar dynamic is evident in trade negotiations with the United States, where public debate and government explanations followed initial announcements rather than informing them.

BLURRING THE LINES OF RESPONSIBILITIES  

This approach creates an awkward dynamic for those invited. Public figures often participate in good faith, believing they are contributing to national debate - but they can become associated with decisions they did not make. The burden of explanation shifts from the government to those who participated in the consultation.

Over time, this practice blurs lines of responsibility. Debate shifts from why a decision was made to how particular figures responded. Independent voices become informal intermediaries between the executive and the public, lending legitimacy to decisions that were already made, even without explicit endorsement.

Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has long been known for its careful policy preparation. Major diplomatic initiatives traditionally passed through extensive internal discussion within the ministry and across government.

Recent controversies suggest this process may be weakening. Confusing or inconsistent explanations indicate that established channels of diplomatic deliberation may be increasingly bypassed or compressed. As foreign policy authority becomes concentrated in the executive, professional expertise risks being sidelined.

This matters not only for domestic governance but also for Indonesia’s role in the region. Jakarta has established diplomatic credibility through consistency, caution and a consultative policy style, helping it build influence within ASEAN and beyond. If major foreign policy decisions become reactive, that credibility may erode.

The internal debate over imposing a toll on Malacca Strait illustrates this risk. The initial remark from the Minister of Finance was quickly followed by rejection from neighbouring countries, criticism from scholars and a rebuttal from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, before the Minister of Finance walked back the proposal.

SOLUTIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT 

Yet these episodes also show that public debate in Indonesia remains active. Critical commentary, academic discussions and civil society pressure continue to prompt government engagement. The challenge is to ensure that this engagement happens before decisions are finalised, not after.

One constructive step would be to strengthen institutional coordination at the highest level of government. This does not require creating new structures - such as the proposed National Security Council - which can increase bureaucratic complexity. Instead, existing coordinating ministries should be used more effectively to ensure that diplomatic, security and economic considerations are debated before major foreign policy commitments are made.

Indonesia possesses capable diplomats, informed scholars and an engaged public - valuable resources for navigating a more turbulent international environment. But they can only contribute meaningfully if they are treated as partners in deliberation, not engaged as audiences for explanation.

If Indonesia’s foreign policy continues to follow a pattern of decision first and consultation later, Indonesia risks reducing democratic governance to mere rhetoric. Yet what will matter in practice is how the country’s decisions are made rather than how they are explained.

Radityo Dharmaputra is Lecturer in the Department of International Relations, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia. This commentary first appeared on East Asia Forum.

Newsletter

Morning Brief

Subscribe to CNA’s Morning Brief

An automated curation of our top stories to start your day.

Sign up for our newsletters

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Subscribe here

Get the CNA app

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Download here

Get WhatsApp alerts

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

Join here