At this year's Indonesian Economic Summit, Indonesia's commitment to an "independent and active" foreign policy took center stage. Arif Havas Oegroseno, Indonesia's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, discusses how the country balances sovereignty with global engagement, navigates rising geopolitical tensions, and leverages its role as a middle power to promote growth, stability, and development in the region and beyond.
Interviewed by Klara Marie Schroeder
Indonesia is one of the few countries whose constitution explicitly sets out the basis of foreign policy. The preamble, especially paragraphs one and four, reflects the vision of our founding fathers. Our foreign policy is both independent and active. Independence means avoiding alignment with blocs; activity means not remaining on the sidelines.
Having emerged from colonial rule, independence was not just a domestic matter for us. For Indonesia, independence means not belonging to any bloc. In the mid-20th century, as the world was divided between the Soviet and Western blocs, we chose to develop our own approach to international relations. This parallels today’s debate in Europe, where Germany seeks “strategic independence” within NATO, wishing to shape its own policies rather than rely solely on an increasingly unreliable US.
From the early years, Indonesia took part in peace efforts - for example, sending peacekeepers to Congo in 1952 despite limited resources. We also helped found the Non-Aligned Movement and ASEAN, rejecting US proposals for a Southeast Asian NATO.
However, I want to point out that we are not “neutral.” Neutrality implies passivity in the face of injustice. We believe neutrality is unacceptable when victims of war need support, as seen today in Palestine, for example. Indonesia’s foreign policy hence rests on two principles: independence from global blocs and active engagement in promoting peace and justice.
While the UN and other multilateral bodies play an important role in promoting peace and stability, the primary responsibility lies with countries within each region. For example, in Europe, it is European nations themselves who must secure peace. Ukraine’s war is ultimately a European responsibility. Indonesia sympathizes with the Ukrainian people, supports humanitarian efforts, and upholds territorial integrity, but Europe must take the lead in resolving its own conflict.
The same applies in Southeast Asia: ASEAN countries bear the responsibility for regional peace and stability. The region is not perfect, as past conflicts have shown. But overall, we have recently avoided large-scale wars like those in Europe or the Middle East. This regional ownership is the backbone of stability. Within ASEAN, Indonesia - as the largest country in terms of population, economy, and geography - carries great responsibility. The same expectation applies to other large members like Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines.
For Indonesia, this responsibility is central to our identity. We must set the tone by respecting international law, promoting dialogue, and leading peace initiatives. Our choices have a ripple effect across the region, which is why Indonesia embraces not only independence and activism in its foreign policy, but also accountability to its neighbors.
When you look at current geopolitical changes from a global perspective, what are the chances and challenges for Middle Powers such as Indonesia?
The world order is shifting in unpredictable ways, and nearly everything is being weaponized - investments, semiconductors, even shoes and textiles. This creates uncertainty but also opportunities.
Take trade: the US accounts for 25% of global GDP but only 15% of world trade. That means 85% of trade happens elsewhere. To reduce risks, countries are looking to diversify markets. This is where middle powers - such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Turkey, or South Africa - can play a crucial role. By working together, middle powers can build resilience against external shocks.
In the digital age, these partnerships can extend to alternative payment systems, reducing reliance on the US dollar, as well as to joint initiatives in investment and trade. Collectively, middle powers represent close to a billion people across regions. This gives them the potential to shape a more balanced, flexible, and cooperative global system.
We must remind both the US and China that while competition is natural, it must not escalate into open conflict. Rivalries exist everywhere - between Germany and France in Europe, or Indonesia and Malaysia in Asia - and they can be healthy. But a confrontation between China and the US would be disastrous on many levels.
First, their economies are deeply intertwined. Take Apple: An American idea and technology, manufactured in China with components from around the world. A rupture in this relationship would cause global disruptions.
Second, both powers have legal commitments in our region. Through the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), ASEAN has agreements with both the US and China, binding them to maintain peaceful relations and avoid threats or force.
This is why I usually prefer to reverse this question. Instead of asking what Southeast Asia should do about the US-China rivalry, we should ask whether the US and China remain politically and legally committed to working with us peacefully. We will continue to engage all partners who contribute to peace and stability. But they, too, must honour their responsibility.
We are de-risking by diversifying our partnerships. This means not relying too heavily on one or two major powers but instead opening new avenues of cooperation. We are looking toward Africa and Latin America, regions with enormous potential for trade, investment, and future growth. At the same time, we continue to strengthen traditional partnerships. We have just concluded a CEPA agreement with the European Union, we are deepening trade relations with the United States, and we are implementing agreements already reached with China.
Most importantly, within ASEAN, we must continue breaking down barriers to trade and investment. This includes not only the traditional flow of goods, but also new areas such as the digital economy, which will increasingly drive growth in our region. A stronger ASEAN digital framework would allow our economies to integrate more deeply, increase competitiveness, and reduce external vulnerability.
The guiding principle here is diversification. Every major economy is now pursuing some form of de-risking, and Indonesia is no exception. By broadening our network of partners, we reduce dependency, strengthen resilience, and create new opportunities for growth.
We also see diversification as a source of leverage. On the one hand, agreements with Europe and the US help us engage with China in a balanced way. On the other hand, our cooperation with China gives us confidence in dealing with Western partners. Diversification, therefore, is not just about spreading risk- it is about ensuring Indonesia and ASEAN have the flexibility to chart our own path in a more uncertain world.
You served as Deputy for Maritime Sovereignty at the Indonesian Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment from 2015 to 2018, where you played a key role in shaping Indonesia’s maritime strategy. Looking ahead, what maritime security challenges do you anticipate in the Indo-Pacific?
I would categorize the main maritime threats into three groups.
First, classical threats: These are traditional security challenges, such as war among nations at sea. Unfortunately, these risks remain, particularly in areas like the Taiwan Strait. We are monitoring such situations closely, as any escalation could have severe regional and global consequences.
Second, threats from illegal activities: While illegal fishing has decreased, we face growing challenges from drug and weapons smuggling, particularly given ongoing conflicts in parts of South Asia. Human trafficking is also a concern, with people moving from countries like Afghanistan or the Middle East toward destinations such as Australia. These criminal activities continue to threaten maritime safety and regional stability.
Third, indirectly man-made threats: Environmental and climate-related risks are rising. Sea level increases and extreme weather events are causing floods and disasters in areas that previously were not affected. These environmental changes have significant implications for coastal communities, maritime infrastructure, and national security.
These are the main maritime trends we expect to see over the next ten years, and they will require coordinated responses from both Indonesia and our regional partners.
Arif Havas Oegroseno serves as Indonesia’s Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs since October 2024. Previously, he was Ambassador to Germany (2018–2024), Vice Minister at the Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment (2015–2018), and Ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the EU (2010–2015). His diplomatic career spans over 30 years, with key assignments in Geneva and Lisbon. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he has participated in advanced training courses worldwide. He has received honorary medals from Belgium and serves on international law panels.
Share on X
Share on LinkedIn