Indonesia's diplomatic stage is heating up, especially following the recent engagements between its new president, Prabowo Subianto, and China's leader, Xi Jinping. Subianto's inaugural trip abroad involved high-stakes meetings with Xi, marking significant talks purportedly centered on bilateral relations, regional stability, and economic growth. This visit, which kicked off on November 8, coincided with the signing of business agreements valued at around $10 billion—part of Indonesia's push to leverage ties with China for economic gains.
The discussions unfolded at the Great Hall of the People, emphasizing both leaders' commitment to fostering cooperation for mutual benefits. President Subianto articulated his intent to bolster Indonesia's economic growth, targeting increases from 5 to 8 percent. Central to this ambition are the frameworks outlined under China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which serves as a backbone for trade and investment links between the two nations.
During his meeting with Xi, Subianto stated, "I would like to reiterate our commitment to enhancing this relationship and working together for the mutual benefit of our two peoples and for the prosperity, peace, and stability of all of Asia." Such pronouncements signal Indonesia's readiness to embrace the opportunities presented by Chinese investments, especially amid the backdrop of China's significant economic heft within the region.
Yet, not everyone is rolling out the welcome mat for these developments. Experts and observers express growing concern about the long-term repercussions of this $10 billion deal, particularly as it pertains to Indonesia's sovereignty and political stability. Merisa Dwi Juanita, head of Bara Maritim, warns about the potential for economic subjugation to China, which could lay the groundwork for increasing military influence within the South China Sea, particularly around the contested North Natuna Sea.
"Indonesia could be subjugated economically by China, potentially leading to military power dynamics shifting throughout the region," Juanita cautioned, shining light on the fears about growing tensions among ASEAN nations. This apprehension builds on the backdrop of China’s controversial ‘nine-dash line’—a demarcation extending China's claimed territory over significant portions of the South China Sea, which includes areas within Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and poses questions about regional law and sovereignty.
Following the meetings, joint statements made were perceived as alarming by analysts, hinting at Indonesia's drift from its historically neutral stance on South China Sea disputes. A considerable aspect of concern is the implicit acknowledgment of China's expansive territorial claims, which could alienate other ASEAN countries like the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam who also have overlapping claims.
Several legal scholars have voiced opposition to the agreements derived from Subianto's talks. Aristyo Darmawan, professor of international law at Universitas Indonesia, argues, "By implicitly recognizing Beijing’s claim, Indonesia has assented to something illegal under international law," stressing the potential repercussions this recognition could have on Indonesia's regional relationships and its own assertions of sovereignty.
At the heart of the agreements are provisions for collaborative ventures encompassing fisheries, oil and gas exploration, and overall maritime safety. While these arrangements hold the promise of economic development, they also exacerbate fears surrounding illegal fishing activities and fishing rights infringement, particularly from aggressive Chinese fishing fleets reportedly operating within Indonesia’s maritime areas.
Experts worry about illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing exacerbated by this deal, predicting increased losses for local fisheries and straining efforts by agencies like Bakamla. Juanita strongly advocates for Indonesia to bolster its legal and maritime defenses to safeguard local fishing communities from predatory practices, hinting at the need for more rigorous enforcement against IUU fishing.
Adding complexity to the discussion, Indonesia’s Foreign Ministry has insisted the agreements align with the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, hoping to uphold peace and stability. They argue these maritime cooperation efforts won’t infringe upon Indonesia’s recognized rights and jurisdiction within the North Natuna Sea. Yet, there lies skepticism over the viability of these claims, especially when juxtaposed against regional sentiments surrounding China's territorial ambitions.
With potential ramifications rippling through the ASEAN community, some nations are expressing disappointment at Indonesia’s perceived alignment with China's interests. By seemingly endorsing aspects of the nine-dash line claim, Indonesia risks undermining its relationships with other regional allies who have long resisted such assertions.
Darmawan's critique articulates the precariousness of Indonesia’s position, characterizing the joint statement with China as a considerable victory for Beijing. He suggests, instead, focusing on self-sustaining development rather than facilitating Chinese dominion over contested maritime resources. This sentiment is echoed amid regional discussions on how ASEAN nations can collectively strategize against external pressures.
While the potential effects of these developments remain to be seen, the interplay between economic aspirations and geopolitical maneuverings sets the stage for what could be turbulent waters for Indonesia's foreign policy moving forward. With the regional geopolitical environment constantly shifting, Indonesia's foreign relations strategy and commitments will be closely watched, particularly as it navigates relationships with both China and other ASEAN partners.
What lies next for Indonesia's international posture is still exploring the balance it can maintain between benefiting from foreign investment and safeguarding its sovereignty. The coming months will likely reveal whether the Indonesian government’s approach will resonate positively or adversely on its internal aspirations and external partnerships.
