Strategic Diplomacy and National Interests: A Comprehensive Response to Criticism of Indonesia’s South China Sea Policy
Jakarta 15 November 2024
By: Rear Admiral (Ret) Soleman B. Ponto. *)
President Prabowo Subianto’s joint statement with China on maritime cooperation in the South China Sea has ignited intense debate. Critics, including Aristyo Darmawan, suggest that the statement reflects a policy shift or diplomatic missteps that could undermine Indonesia’s sovereignty.[1] However, these critiques fail to account for the strategic considerations underpinning Indonesia’s approach, which balances de jure legal principles with de facto realities to safeguard national interests. This article addresses the criticisms paragraph by paragraph, emphasizing intelligence perspectives, legal philosophy, and practical geopolitics. Special attention is given to Aristyo’s critique, including his labeling of certain actions as "stupid."
Critique 1: “President Prabowo Subianto has dazed and confused many foreign policy observers with an apparent dramatic shift in Indonesia’s South China Sea policy while in Beijing.”
Response:
The perception of confusion stems from a misunderstanding of strategic ambiguity—a diplomatic tool that allows Indonesia to engage constructively with China while preserving its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- Intelligence Perspective:
Strategic ambiguity is essential in navigating complex geopolitical disputes. It enables Indonesia to address de facto challenges posed by China’s assertiveness without jeopardizing its de jure claims under UNCLOS. - Legal Philosophy:
Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince emphasizes pragmatism in leadership. The ambiguity reflects Indonesia’s prioritization of long-term sovereignty over immediate clarity, preserving flexibility in negotiations.
Critique 2: “Indonesia Foreign Ministry officials were caught off guard, if not shocked, after an official statement released on the final day of Prabowo’s trip appeared to recognize China’s expansive ‘nine-dash line’ claim…”
Response:
The swift clarification by the Foreign Ministry demonstrates Indonesia’s institutional commitment to defending its legal stance under UNCLOS. This is not evidence of disarray but of coordinated diplomacy addressing misinterpretations.
- Legal Theory:
Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law underscores that legal norms remain unaffected by political statements. The Ministry’s clarification ensures alignment with UNCLOS and reinforces Indonesia’s sovereignty. - Intelligence Perspective:
Proactive clarifications mitigate potential misinterpretations, preemptively countering attempts by external actors to exploit perceived weaknesses in Indonesia’s policy.
Critique 3: “The announcement’s language was ambiguous so the practical implications remain unclear.”
Response:
Ambiguity in diplomatic language is deliberate, allowing Indonesia to engage with China while avoiding rigid positions that could escalate tensions or limit future strategic options.
- Philosophical Insight:
Aristotle’s phronesis (practical wisdom) supports adaptive decision-making in dynamic contexts. Ambiguity ensures Indonesia retains leverage while addressing sensitive disputes. - De Facto Realities:
Recognizing disputes does not legitimize illegitimate claims. Instead, it acknowledges the geopolitical realities necessary for constructive engagement.
Critique 4: “This, plus earlier signals Indonesia might be taking a tougher line on defending its maritime territory…”
Response:
The combination of diplomatic engagement and assertive maritime defense reflects Indonesia’s dual strategy of safeguarding sovereignty while fostering regional stability.
- Legal Philosophy:
Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace advocates for cooperation under international law. Indonesia’s adherence to UNCLOS while asserting its maritime boundaries exemplifies this principle. - Intelligence Perspective:
A balanced approach ensures that Indonesia protects its territorial integrity without alienating key regional partners or escalating conflicts unnecessarily.
Critique 5: “Was this a simple slapdash slip by a president determined to take the lead on foreign policy…?”
Response:
This characterization overlooks the deliberate and calculated nature of President Prabowo’s actions. The joint statement reflects strategic pragmatism rather than impulsive decision-making.
- Philosophical Perspective:
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince advises leaders to adapt to shifting realities while safeguarding their state’s interests. Prabowo’s leadership embodies this adaptability. - Intelligence Perspective:
Leadership-driven diplomacy signals Indonesia’s resolve to both domestic and international audiences, ensuring its sovereignty and strategic influence.
Critique 6: “China has long made expansive territorial claims to waters in the South China Sea…”
Response:
China’s Nine-Dash Line represents a de facto challenge that Indonesia must address. However, Indonesia’s rejection of these claims under UNCLOS remains firm.
- Legal Theory:
The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling invalidates the Nine-Dash Line, providing Indonesia with a robust legal basis to counter China’s claims. - Intelligence Perspective:
Engaging diplomatically prevents unilateral Chinese actions while ensuring Indonesia remains a central player in regional geopolitics.
Responding to Aristyo Darmawan’s Critique
Aristyo Darmawan raises two main concerns: that acknowledging overlapping claims could lead to boundary negotiations and that resource-sharing agreements risk undermining Indonesia’s sovereignty. He also controversially labels resource-sharing as “stupid.” While his arguments highlight important legal considerations, they fail to fully appreciate the broader strategic and diplomatic context.
1. “Accepting an overlapping claim implies Indonesia might be open to negotiations on the maritime boundary.”
Response:
Acknowledging overlapping claims does not signify a willingness to negotiate sovereignty. Instead, it reflects a diplomatic acknowledgment of disputes, ensuring constructive dialogue without compromising Indonesia’s legal rights.
- Legal Philosophy:
Lon Fuller’s Morality of Law underscores the importance of adapting legal frameworks to practical challenges. This acknowledgment ensures that Indonesia maintains its legal position under UNCLOS while addressing de facto disputes. - Intelligence Perspective:
Recognizing disputes tactically buys time, allowing Indonesia to strengthen its strategic posture and avoid unilateral escalations.
2. “Opening the door to sharing resources in the area…is like a random person arguing that part of your house is theirs.”
Response:
Aristyo’s analogy oversimplifies the strategic rationale behind resource-sharing agreements. These agreements allow Indonesia to benefit economically while maintaining sovereignty and influence.
- Legal Philosophy:
John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice supports equitable cooperation that benefits all parties without undermining sovereignty. Joint development agreements align with this principle. - De Facto Realities:
Resource-sharing agreements prevent unilateral exploitation by China, reinforcing Indonesia’s operational presence in contested areas. - Intelligence Perspective:
These agreements are strategic tools to counteract de facto threats, ensuring Indonesia retains control and influence while deriving tangible benefits.
3. Aristyo’s Labeling of Resource-Sharing as “Stupid”
Response:
Labeling resource-sharing as "stupid" dismisses the nuanced strategic benefits these agreements offer. Such actions are pragmatic measures that strengthen Indonesia’s position without conceding sovereignty.
- Legal and Strategic Realities:
Joint resource management enables Indonesia to maintain a presence in contested waters while deriving economic benefits, ensuring long-term resilience. - Philosophical Perspective:
Pragmatism, as advocated by thinkers like Machiavelli and Rawls, underpins Indonesia’s approach to balancing economic cooperation with sovereignty preservation. - Intelligence Perspective:
Resource-sharing agreements provide operational control over contested areas, preventing unilateral actions by adversaries.
Conclusion: Balancing Sovereignty and Strategic Realities
President Prabowo Subianto’s approach to the South China Sea reflects a nuanced strategy that combines legal adherence with practical engagement to address de facto challenges. Critics, including Aristyo Darmawan, raise important concerns but overlook the broader strategic considerations underpinning Indonesia’s actions.
- Legal Integrity:
Indonesia’s commitment to UNCLOS ensures its sovereignty and territorial claims remain intact. - Strategic Pragmatism:
Acknowledging disputes and exploring resource-sharing agreements are tools to secure mutual benefits while maintaining de jure rights. - Intelligence-Driven Diplomacy:
Strategic ambiguity and calculated engagement enable Indonesia to counter threats effectively, safeguard sovereignty, and maintain stability.
By balancing assertiveness with pragmatism, Indonesia demonstrates its commitment to national interests, ensuring sovereignty, security, and prosperity in an increasingly contested global landscape. Aristyo’s critique highlights valid concerns, but the broader context reveals a calculated and resilient approach to securing Indonesia’s long-term strategic goals.
*)Kabais TNI 2011-2013
