Abstract
Entering the 2025–2026 period, Indonesia finds itself in a phase that can be categorized as Survival Diplomacy, a pattern of foreign relations that prioritizes short-term stability through strategic compromises that risk eroding long-term sovereignty. This article analyzes the structural causes behind the erosion of Indonesia’s national red lines, ranging from multisectoral dependency and shifts in elite orientation to the fragmentation of security doctrine and the erosion of international moral leverage. Employing political economy and constitutional law approaches, the article demonstrates that without strategic correction, Indonesia risks the permanent loss of strategic autonomy. It then proposes a realistic counter-strategy that enables Indonesia to survive in an increasingly competitive geopolitical environment without sacrificing substantive sovereignty.
Keywords: survival diplomacy, strategic autonomy, national red lines, functional sovereignty, Indonesian foreign policy
1. Strategic Context: Indonesia in the Post-2025 Geopolitical Landscape
As the international system enters the second half of the 2020s, it is moving away from a relatively stable liberal order toward a more competitive, multipolar, and increasingly transactional configuration. Great power rivalry between the United States and China is no longer confined to trade or technology, but has expanded into the formation of geopolitical blocs, the restructuring of global supply chains, and the politicization of economic instruments as tools of strategic pressure. Within this context, middle powers such as Indonesia face a classic dilemma: preserving sovereign room for maneuver while ensuring domestic stability amid mounting external pressure.
Constitutionally, Indonesia anchors its foreign policy in the principle of a free and active posture, as enshrined in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which mandates Indonesia’s role in contributing to a world order based on independence, lasting peace, and social justice. Yet this normative principle is increasingly tested by geopolitical realities that compel states to adopt defensive and reactive policy choices. Since 2025, Indonesian foreign policy has shown a growing tendency to prioritize short-term risk management, particularly in maintaining economic stability, development financing, and domestic security, even at the cost of narrowing long-term strategic options.
This phase can be conceptualized as Survival Diplomacy, a condition in which a state is not engaged in open conflict but must continuously renegotiate its position to avoid being trapped by the structural pressures of external powers. Such diplomacy is characterized by the absence of clearly articulated red lines, the weakening of moral leverage, and a tendency to avoid firm positions in favor of maintaining superficial stability. While this approach may generate a sense of security in the short term, over time it risks locking Indonesia into strategic dependencies that are difficult to reverse.
2. Problem Analysis: Diagnosing the Erosion of Indonesia’s National Red Lines
The erosion of Indonesia’s national red lines has not occurred abruptly, but rather as the cumulative result of multiple structural factors that mutually reinforce one another. Multisectoral dependency constitutes the most dominant factor. Indonesia faces compound dependency on external financing, both bilateral and multilateral, which in turn constrains fiscal flexibility and diplomatic autonomy. Dependence on imports of certain food commodities and fossil energy further narrows policy space during periods of global disruption, while control over strategic technologies, such as data infrastructure, artificial intelligence, and defense systems, remains largely in the hands of external actors. When these dependencies intersect with concentrated export markets, the state’s practical ability to say “no” in diplomatic negotiations becomes severely limited.
A second factor lies in the shift of elite orientation from state interest to regime or power stability. In many strategic decisions, the primary consideration is no longer the long-term risk to sovereignty, but rather the short-term risk to elite political stability. National red lines, which should function as instruments to protect strategic interests, are instead perceived as obstacles to political survival. This creates a paradox in which the state appears stable on the surface while becoming structurally more fragile beneath.
The third issue is the fragmentation of doctrine across diplomacy, defense, and intelligence. Indonesian diplomacy tends to remain normative and reactive; defense policy is largely symbolic, lacking credible power projection; and intelligence functions defensively, without integration into a coherent national grand strategy. The absence of consistent grand strategic signaling prevents external actors from clearly reading Indonesia’s tolerance thresholds, allowing pressure to intensify without meaningful deterrence. From the perspective of national defense law, this condition contradicts the principle of total defense, which requires the integration of all national instruments of power.
The fourth factor concerns an extractive political economy that weakens the state’s bargaining position. The rapid release of strategic natural resources, externally dominated downstream industrialization, and the limited role of the state in capturing value-added reduce Indonesia’s control over its own sources of livelihood. In economic sovereignty theory, a state that does not control its strategic resources cannot maintain firm red lines in international relations. Economic dependency thus translates directly into political dependency.
Finally, the erosion of international moral leverage exacerbates these vulnerabilities. Indonesia, once recognized as a morally grounded middle power, a substantive embodiment of the free and active foreign policy, and an ethical balancer in the region, is increasingly perceived as neutral without position. In an international system that is becoming ever more transactional, neutrality without principle is interpreted as the absence of stance, thereby diminishing diplomatic leverage.
3. Medium- and Long-Term Strategic Implications
If these trends remain uncorrected, Indonesia risks entering a paradoxical condition within the next five to ten years. Militarily, the country may remain relatively secure, as it is unlikely to become a direct target of great power conflict. Politically and economically, however, strategic choice will narrow significantly. Indonesia may not be formally colonized, but it will be conditioned through economic mechanisms, technological dependency, and coercive diplomacy. Political elites may preserve short-term stability, while societal vulnerability increases alongside the erosion of economic and social sovereignty.
From the perspective of international law and constitutional governance, the loss of strategic autonomy implies a diminished capacity to exercise substantive self-determination. The state continues to exist, but its strategic options are increasingly constrained by external interests. At a certain point, such dependency risks becoming permanent, making any attempt at correction far more costly in political and economic terms.
4. Strategic Solutions: Designing a Counter-Strategy to Survive with Dignity
The proposed solution does not aim to confront major powers directly, but rather to establish clear and consistent boundaries that are respected. The formulation of minimum, non-negotiable red lines constitutes the foundation of this approach. These red lines include the prohibition of permanent foreign military bases, the rejection of foreign control over national strategic data, the protection of critical natural resources from being used as geopolitical collateral, the independence of defense decision-making from financing pressures, and the assertion that active neutrality must not function as a proxy strategy. Within the national legal framework, these principles are consistent with state sovereignty as articulated in Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
Active asymmetric diplomacy serves as a complementary instrument, positioning Indonesia as a strategic swing state that offers regional stability rather than bloc loyalty. Issues such as food security, climate change, maritime routes, and demographics can function as legitimate bargaining chips in diplomacy without binding Indonesia to any single power. This approach allows Indonesia to maximize its geographic and demographic advantages as strategic assets.
The concept of functional sovereignty, or selective sovereignty, is also critical. Indonesia does not need to be fully autonomous across all sectors, but it must ensure independence at key nodes such as data and artificial intelligence governance, staple food security, basic energy supply, strategic maritime routes, and critical human capital. Beyond these sectors, international cooperation remains open and, indeed, necessary.
5. Policy Action: Elite Consolidation and the Reconstruction of Moral Leverage
Implementing this strategy requires cross-sectoral elite consolidation based on a fundamental agreement that the state must not be used as political collateral. Institutions such as the National Resilience Institute (Lemhannas) play a strategic role as integrators of national strategy, guardians of crisis doctrine, and coordinators of cross-sectoral scenarios. This consolidation must be accompanied by the reconstruction of international moral leverage through consistency on humanitarian and global justice issues, non-transactional adherence to principles, and firmness without confrontation. The international community tends to respect states that understand their boundaries and enforce them consistently.
6. Strategic Conclusion
Stability without red lines is merely an interlude before permanent dependency. In the twenty-first century, sovereignty is no longer determined solely by the ability to win wars, but by the capacity to preserve the right to choose. Indonesia stands at a strategic crossroads that will determine whether it remains a sovereign subject within the international system or is reduced to an object of great power dynamics. This choice demands political courage, legal consistency, and a long-term strategic vision that transcends short-term interests.
Note:
The author, Dr. Surya Wiranto, SH MH, is a retired Rear Admiral of the Indonesian Navy, Advisor to Indo-Pacific Strategic Intelligence (ISI), Senior Advisory Group member of IKAHAN Indonesia-Australia, Lecturer at the Postgraduate Program on Maritime Security at the Indonesian Defense University, Head of the Kejuangan Department at PEPABRI, Member of FOKO, Secretary-General of the IKAL Strategic Center and Executive Director of the Indonesia Institute for Maritime Studies (IIMS). He is also active as a Lawyer, Receiver, and Mediator at the Legal Jangkar Indonesia law firm ⚓️.
References
- Acharya, Amitav. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, 2014.
- Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
- Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Indonesia. Indonesia’s Defense White Paper. Jakarta, latest edition.
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia. Indonesia’s Free and Active Foreign Policy. Jakarta.
- The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
