Business in Diplomacy: H.E. Gandi Sulistiyanto Soeherman

Business in Diplomacy is a Foreign Policy Talks series that puts the spotlight on the business leaders who sit at the intersection of commerce and statecraft. Through in-depth conversations, we explore how they read the geopolitical landscape, how they engage governments and international partners, and what they believe it takes for Indonesia to compete, connect, and grow in an uncertain global order.

This edition features H.E. Gandi Sulistiyanto Soeherman, Former Indonesian Ambassador to South Korea (2021-2023) and Former Managing Director of Sinar Mas (2002-2021).

---

Q&A

Q1:

In your view, what distinguishes economic diplomacy from commercial diplomacy in Indonesia’s context? How do you see your role, and perhaps the role of your chamber, in supporting Indonesia’s trajectory in advancing these efforts?

I think of them as the big picture and the small picture. Commercial diplomacy works at the company level; helping an exporter find a buyer, guiding an investor through licensing, or solving one specific problem. Economic diplomacy works at the structural level; trade agreements, investment rules, and how the country positions itself. The two cannot be separated. A good agreement is useless if companies cannot use it, and company effort hits a wall without the right framework around it. In Seoul I did both at once: working toward the Indonesia–Korea economic partnership, while also walking individual Korean firms through their investments.

The chamber's job, and here I mean the KADIN Indonesia–Korea Bilateral Committee, is to be the bridge. Government can open the door, but it is business that walks through it. Chambers bring people together, organize trade missions, and carry the honest voice of business back to policymakers. They also give continuity that lasts longer than any single administration.

My view is simple: diplomats and entrepreneurs must sit at the same table. When they do not, you get signed papers that never become factories. When they do, diplomacy turns into jobs.

Q2:

Looking back across different administrations, what has been your most memorable experience in supporting Indonesia’s economic or commercial diplomacy?

Across the administrations I have served, the moment that stays with me is seeing diplomacy become something you can actually touch.

For years we made the case for Indonesia in meeting rooms. The main example came in Korea. We had put real effort into building the relationship government-to-government. Then I watched Hyundai's plant in Karawang begin producing cars, and the Hyundai–LG battery ecosystem grew up around it. Suddenly the conversations had become real things: assembly lines, local suppliers, and Indonesian workers learning new skills. What made it memorable was the order of events. I could draw a straight line from a handshake, to an agreement, to a groundbreaking, to a pay check for a family in West Java. That is the whole point of economic diplomacy, and it is rare to see the full story unfold in just a few years.

The lesson is patience. The work that matters most is often invisible for a long time before it suddenly becomes concrete. Much like in business, where the best decisions rarely pay off in a single quarter. You plant the tree long before you sit in its shade.

Q3:

Based on your experience in conducting ‘business diplomacy’ overseas, what are the prevailing perceptions of Indonesia among international stakeholders? Have these perceptions evolved in recent years?

The way Indonesia is seen abroad has changed a great deal, and mostly for the better. A decade ago, we were viewed mainly as a big market and a source of commodities: palm oil, coal, rubber. The interest was real but one-dimensional, and it came with the usual worries about regulations and bureaucracy.

One of the biggest shifts in how partners describe us today is our national strategy of economic downstreaming (or hilirisasi), the decision to process our raw resources at home instead of simply shipping them out. Because of this, and our large nickel reserves, Indonesia has moved to the centre of the electric-vehicle and battery supply chain. Planners in Korea, Japan, China, and Europe now factor us into their thinking about the energy transition itself.

I will be honest that older concerns have not disappeared. Partners still ask about consistent rules and how easy it is to get things done on the ground. Those questions are fair, and answering them is our homework.

But the story has changed from "a big market worth putting up with some difficulty for" to "a serious player whose choices affect global supply chains." That is a real step up, and we should build on it rather than assume it will last on its own.

Q4:

In your opinion, what are Indonesia’s most critical assets and strategic resources in strengthening its foreign economic diplomacy?

I would point to three. First, our people. More than 270 million citizens, a young population, and a growing middle class, this is both a huge market and a workforce. No partner can ignore that scale of demand and talent.

Second, our strategic resources, used wisely. Our nickel reserves are among the largest in the world, putting us at the heart of the battery transition. Downstreaming is the key idea here: using access to those resources to attract processing, manufacturing, and technology onto Indonesian soil. That is how a resource becomes a real asset instead of just a raw export.

Third, our location and standing. Indonesia sits along vital sea lanes, anchors ASEAN, and is trusted as an independent, bridge-building voice. Being trusted by many sides is itself rare and valuable today.

The thread running through all three is the same: an asset is only as good as the strategy behind it. Nickel without downstreaming is just ore. A young population without skills is just a number. Our task in economic diplomacy is to turn what we have into what partners truly need.

Q5:

Which regions or markets do you believe Indonesia may have overemphasized, and which regions remain under-explored despite having strong relevance and potential for Indonesian businesses?

Let me frame this as a matter of balance, not criticism — every relationship we have built has value.

Naturally, our attention has gathered around our biggest and nearest partners, within ASEAN, across East Asia, and in the traditional Western markets. That focus makes sense, because that is where the trade volumes are. The only risk is concentration: when too much rests on a few relationships, you become exposed to their ups and downs.

The frontiers I see as genuinely under-explored are the Gulf, Central and South Asia, and Latin America. The Gulf states hold large pools of sovereign capital that are actively looking for new places to invest. Indonesia should rank higher on their list. South Asia, with its huge population right next to us, deserves far more organized engagement than it gets today.

These markets are harder. They take patience, a presence on the ground, and a willingness to let relationships grow over years, which is exactly why they are under- served, and therefore full of opportunity for those who arrive early.

My advice is not to walk away from established markets, but to deliberately set aside some effort for these frontiers. Diversifying is not only about growth; it is about resilience.

Q6:

What areas do you believe are most important to improve in order to strengthen Indonesia’s engagement with international business and economic partners?

If I had to choose, I would put execution ahead of ambition, because our ambition is already strong.

The first area is consistent, predictable rules. Investors rarely fear a hard rule; they fear a rule that keeps changing. Stability attracts more capital than almost any incentive could.

The second is the gap between signing and doing. We are good at memoranda, the world has seen plenty of handshake photos. The harder skill is following through, turning a signed paper into a working factory. I would like to see more accountability for what happens in the eighteen months after the ceremony ends.

The third is coordination. Our embassies, trade offices, and investment bodies need to act as one team with one message.

The fourth is skills. Investment increasingly follows talent, not just resources. Vocational training matched to the industries we are courting (batteries, electronics, digital) is economic diplomacy by another name.

None of this is glamorous. But the difference between a country that talks well and one that delivers comes down almost entirely to these quiet, practical details. That is where I would put the energy.

Q7:

What are the most effective instruments or platforms available today for Indonesian businesses to better leverage Indonesia’s foreign economic engagements?

Several tools exist; the skill is in using them together rather than one at a time.

The foundation is our trade and investment agreements, the partnerships with countries such as Korea, the regional RCEP framework, and the agreement being negotiated with the EU. These set the rules and lower the barriers. But an unused agreement is wasted, which is where the next tool comes in.

The chambers and bilateral business councils (KADIN and its partners). They turn frameworks into real deals and carry practical concerns back to government. For a small business that cannot afford its own market research, a chamber is often the only realistic way into a foreign market.

Then there are our state investment vehicles. Alongside the Indonesia Investment Authority, the new sovereign wealth fund Danantara now gives serious foreign capital a strong, professional partner, with a clear focus on downstreaming and major projects. It is an important new instrument for bringing in foreign partnership.

Digital platforms matter too. E-commerce now lets a craftsman in Yogyakarta reach an overseas buyer without a single trade mission, opening doors for our many small businesses. And our diaspora and culture, as Korea has shown, are powerful tools we underuse.

My advice to a young Indonesian business: do not try to do this alone. The platforms are there, and most are free or low-cost. Use them.

Q8:

Foreign Policy Talks has long advocated the idea that “foreign policy begins at home, and must also return home,” emphasizing the importance of strong domestic foundations to ensure international engagements deliver tangible benefits to society. What are your thoughts on this perspective?

I agree with this completely, it captures the whole purpose of the work. Diplomacy that never reaches an ordinary citizen — a worker, a farmer, a small business owner, is just ceremony. The real measure of an investment is not the size of the headline number, but whether it creates jobs, passes on skills, and strengthens local supply chains.

This is why downstreaming matters so much to me. When a battery investment arrives, I always ask the same thing: does it build local ability, train Indonesian engineers, and buy from Indonesian suppliers, or is it just an enclave that ships the value back out? The first one delivers on "returning home." The second does not.

"Begins at home" matters just as much. Our credibility abroad rests on our condition at home. No amount of skilled negotiation can make up for poor infrastructure, unpredictable rules, or a workforce without the right skills. When I represented Indonesia overseas, my strongest arguments were always the real improvements happening at home.

So, to young readers I would say: Be ambitious in the world, but never value the foreign over the domestic. The two are one loop. We engage the world in order to come home stronger, and we can only engage the world from a foundation we have built at home.

---