Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto is facing mounting pressure to prioritize ASEAN regional stability over his ambitious diplomatic outreach to the Middle East. This strategic tension underscores Jakarta’s struggle to balance its “free and active” foreign policy with the urgent need for Southeast Asian cohesion amidst intensifying US-China rivalry.
For those of us who have spent decades tracking the corridors of power in Jakarta, this isn’t just a matter of scheduling flights to Riyadh or Cairo. It is a fundamental question of identity. Is Indonesia the natural leader of Southeast Asia, or is it attempting to pivot toward a broader, more globalized role as a spokesperson for the Global South?
Here is why that matters. Indonesia is the gravitational center of ASEAN. When Jakarta looks away, the regional vacuum is almost instantly filled by external powers—most notably Beijing. If Prabowo spends too much political capital in the Middle East, he risks eroding the “ASEAN Centrality” that has kept the region from becoming a mere playground for superpowers.
The High Stakes of the Jakarta-Riyadh Axis
Prabowo has always been a man of grand visions. His interest in the Middle East isn’t merely about religious solidarity; it is a calculated play for defense modernization and energy security. By strengthening ties with the Gulf states, Indonesia secures investment for its massive infrastructure projects and diversifies its military procurement away from a sole reliance on Western hardware.
But there is a catch. Diplomacy is a zero-sum game of time and attention. While Prabowo courts the Middle East, the South China Sea remains a tinderbox. The Philippines and Vietnam are increasingly anxious, looking to Indonesia to provide the diplomatic weight necessary to preserve maritime disputes from escalating into full-scale conflict.
“Indonesia’s ambition to be a global player is commendable, but its primary responsibility remains the stability of its own backyard. A fragmented ASEAN is a liability that no amount of Middle Eastern investment can offset,” notes a senior fellow at the Lowy Institute.
The friction point is clear: the domestic elite and regional partners fear that a “globalist” approach ignores the immediate, grinding reality of regional security. Earlier this week, the discourse in Jakarta shifted toward a more pragmatic “ASEAN First” doctrine, urging the President to solidify the regional bloc before attempting to architect a new world order.
The Nickel Leverage and Global Macro-Economics
To understand the economic underpinnings of this debate, we have to look at the ground—specifically, the nickel. Indonesia holds the world’s largest nickel reserves, a critical component for the global transition to electric vehicles (EVs). This has given Jakarta an unprecedented amount of leverage in the global macro-economy.
By leveraging its “downstreaming” policy, Indonesia has forced foreign investors to build refineries on Indonesian soil. Although, this economic strategy requires a stable regional environment to attract long-term capital. If ASEAN is perceived as unstable or if Indonesia is seen as distracted, the risk premium for foreign direct investment (FDI) rises.
Here is a breakdown of how these two diplomatic paths diverge in terms of strategic priorities:
| Strategic Pillar | ASEAN-First Approach | Middle East Pivot |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Regional Security & Maritime Stability | Global South Leadership & Defense Ties |
| Economic Driver | Intra-ASEAN Trade & EV Supply Chains | Sovereign Wealth Fund Investments |
| Security Focus | South China Sea / Myanmar Crisis | Counter-Terrorism & Arms Procurement |
| Global Rivalry | Balancing US and China | Diversifying away from Western Hegemony |
When we bridge this to the global economy, the ripple effect is significant. A distracted Indonesia could lead to inconsistencies in the World Bank-tracked growth trajectories for Southeast Asia, potentially disrupting the flow of critical minerals to European and American battery manufacturers.
Navigating the Superpower Tightrope
The real chess game, however, is the triangle between Jakarta, Washington, and Beijing. The United States views Indonesia as a critical pillar of its Indo-Pacific strategy. If Prabowo leans too heavily into Middle Eastern alliances—many of which are increasingly entwined with Chinese infrastructure projects—it could signal a drift away from the Western security umbrella.
Conversely, China sees an opportunity. If Indonesia prioritizes “Global South” diplomacy over ASEAN cohesion, the bloc’s ability to present a united front on the South China Sea collapses. This allows Beijing to deal with ASEAN members individually, employing a “divide and conquer” strategy that weakens the collective bargaining power of the region.
This is the paradox of Prabowo’s presidency. To be a truly global leader, he needs a stable, prosperous, and united home base. You cannot lead the Global South if your own neighborhood is in turmoil.
“The challenge for President Prabowo is to prove that ‘Global’ and ‘Regional’ are not mutually exclusive. He must use his international prestige to bring more resources into ASEAN, rather than using ASEAN as a stepping stone to a larger stage,” suggests an analyst from the Council on Foreign Relations.
As we move toward the second half of the year, the pressure will only mount. The world is watching to see if Jakarta can successfully execute a “dual-track” diplomacy or if the ambition of the man will clash with the necessities of the state.
the “ASEAN First” advice isn’t a call for isolationism; it’s a plea for realism. In a world of shifting tectonic plates, the strongest position is one rooted in a solid foundation. If Prabowo can secure the region, his voice in the Middle East and beyond will carry far more weight.
Do you think a nation as large as Indonesia can truly lead globally without first dominating its own region, or is the “Global South” ambition the only way to escape the shadow of the superpowers? I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
