Indonesia’s ‘Diplomacy of Resilience’: A Strategy in Search of Definition

Indonesia, under President Prabowo Subianto, is increasingly framing its foreign policy around a “diplomacy of resilience” (East Asia Forum). This approach emphasizes preparedness, autonomy, and security in a rapidly fragmenting international order. However, experts caution that the concept, as currently defined, risks becoming a vague substitute for strategic decision-making, potentially hindering Indonesia’s ability to exert leadership and shape regional outcomes.

A World in Fragmentation

Indonesian Foreign Minister Sugiono, in his Annual Press Statement on January 14, 2026, diagnosed a changing international system characterized by fragmentation, selective application of international law, and a weakening of global governance. This assessment underscores a growing concern that the established rules-based order is eroding, leading to increased competition and instability. Sugiono warned that narrow national interests are overriding collective security, and international law is being misused without accountability (Xinhua).

The Core of ‘Diplomasi Ketahanan’

In response to this perceived fragmentation, Indonesia has adopted “diplomacy of resilience” – or diplomasi ketahanan – as a guiding principle. This doctrine aims to foster preparedness and autonomy, echoing Indonesia’s long-held tradition of a “free and active” foreign policy. Sugiono has emphasized that foreign policy “begins at home,” prioritizing citizen security in a volatile world (East Asia Forum). The emphasis on resilience aligns with the broader priorities of the Prabowo administration, which is also focused on strengthening state capacity and modernizing defense capabilities.

The Risk of Underdefinition

Despite its timely appeal, analysts argue that “diplomacy of resilience” currently lacks a concrete strategic framework (East Asia Forum). The concept is broad and overextended, assuming that internal strength automatically translates into external influence. Without clearer priorities and limitations, resilience risks becoming a justification for a reactive, risk-averse foreign policy, rather than a proactive effort to shape regional and global events.

Shifting Priorities and Potential Trade-offs

The emphasis on resilience appears to be influencing Indonesia’s foreign policy priorities. Sugiono’s recent statement highlighted the importance of novel bilateral partnerships, but gave comparatively less attention to regional organizations like ASEAN, traditionally a cornerstone of Indonesian diplomacy (East Asia Forum). Norms such as democracy, human rights, and a rules-based international order were notably absent from the discussion. Even relations with key defense partner, the United States, were not mentioned.

From Resilience to Securitization?

There are concerns that framing foreign policy solely through the lens of resilience could lead to the “securitization” of diplomacy. This means that economic policy, technology governance, and other areas could be increasingly viewed through a national security framework, potentially leading to protectionist measures and an incoherent foreign policy approach. This pattern mirrors a historical trend where security concerns expanded into civilian governance, hardening exceptional measures into routine practice.

The Path Forward

Indonesia possesses the resources and legitimacy to play a more ambitious diplomatic role. The challenge lies in translating the concept of resilience into a clear strategy with defined national interests and a vision for leadership in the global arena. Unless “diplomacy of resilience” is anchored in concrete strategic choices, it risks becoming a language of caution that hinders, rather than strengthens, Indonesia’s ability to navigate a complex and changing world (East Asia Forum).