By: Fauzan Luthsa, analyst at the Indonesia Democracy Bridge Research Institute (Ind-BRI)
LENTERAMERAH – Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country, has played a quiet yet consequential role in facilitating Israel’s launch of Operation Rising Lion—an airstrike targeting strategic nuclear facilities in Iran on 14 June 2025. This came on the heels of a resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just two days earlier.
On 12 June 2025, for the first time in two decades, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a major resolution accusing Iran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations. This was not merely a technical issue; it was the laying of geopolitical groundwork for what was to come.
The IAEA’s decision, in its legal and formal framing, effectively reinforced Israel’s narrative of self-defense—providing justification for a unilateral act that directly violates the UN Charter.
Indonesia in Collective Silence
In this decisive vote—one with significant implications for global peace—the resolution sponsored by France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States was backed by 19 countries, rejected by three (Russia, China, and Burkina Faso), and abstained from by 11. Indonesia was among those who chose to abstain.
In international diplomacy, abstention is often framed as a moderate stance—one that avoids conflict while safeguarding national interests. Yet, in a moment of immense geopolitical significance, abstention reveals something deeper: a foreign policy adrift. It is a moment of bitter irony for the Global South—and for Indonesia in particular—at a time when the world order is being reshaped.
In this context, abstaining no longer signals neutrality—it denotes a withdrawal of responsibility. It becomes a form of concealed partiality or silent complicity, where the will to oppose is subdued by the desire not to be disturbed.
Indonesia’s abstention during the IAEA vote runs counter to its own core principles of justice, non-intervention, and sovereign equality—the pillars of its foreign policy tradition. More troubling, it reflects a lack of awareness of diplomatic timing and strategic urgency.
The Stagnation of Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Architecture
Indonesia’s foreign policy spirit is rooted in the 1955 Bandung Principles, which reject bloc politics and affirm the voice of the Global South. Across administrations, this doctrine—articulated by Vice President Mohammad Hatta in his landmark 1948 “Rowing Between Two Reefs” speech before the Central Indonesian National Committee (KNIP)—has consistently promoted an active and independent foreign policy.
Yet somewhere along the way, the phrase “active and independent” lost its substance and slipped into passive disengagement. Today, it has lost direction. The Bandung spirit, which once energized the Non-Aligned Movement, has been reduced in meaning by those entrusted with foreign policy.
Indonesia’s assertiveness in international forums on issues like Palestine may still reflect the Bandung ethos and its commitment to opposing humanitarian injustice. But such consistency falters when it comes to other moments of Global South vulnerability—such as Iran under mounting pressure from dominant global powers.
Instead of holding firm to its founding diplomatic principles, Indonesia’s foreign policy now appears untethered—moving freely, yet aimlessly.
This stagnation shows a nation navigating global affairs without a compass, with little national interest being advanced. A notable diplomatic failure was Indonesia’s inability to manage relations with Pacific island nations over the Papua issue.
In an era of increasing geopolitical uncertainty—where international law is often used as a tool of coercion—Indonesia must carefully identify strategic partners without submitting to either side of the global power divide.
A Lesson from Serbia
A useful comparative case is Serbia. As a pivotal state in the Balkans, Serbia has adopted a “sitting on two chairs” foreign policy. While not a member of either the European Union (EU) or NATO, Serbia aspires to join the EU and simultaneously maintains strong ties with Russia.
This dual-chair doctrine reflects Serbia’s pragmatic response to the dilemma of geopolitical alignment. It is far from an easy position, but it represents a calculated and strategic effort to balance competing pressures—despite wide-ranging implications for domestic politics and national identity.
Time to Redefine Indonesia’s Foreign Policy
The global shift toward multipolarity presents a rare opportunity for Indonesia to return to the true meaning of an active and independent foreign policy. The Bandung spirit, now little more than a relic within the foreign ministry, must be revitalized.
Indonesia’s foreign policy architecture needs redefinition and reconstruction in line with national interests. The concept of “active and independent”—too often diluted into passive neutrality—must be rooted in strategic distance, with consistency as its backbone.
In the face of mounting global challenges and domestic pressures, Indonesia cannot afford a diplomatic vacuum. What is required is a foreign policy doctrine that is ideologically driven and structurally resilient.
For when foreign policy becomes little more than a bureaucratic template devoid of courage, we should not be surprised if our diplomacy is recorded merely as minutes—not as history. ***
