How Prabowo’s Realpolitik Redefines Indonesia’s Foreign Policy

President Prabowo Subianto, flanked by Foreign Minister Sugiono and Cabinet Secretary Teddy Indra Wijaya, takes part in the APEC 2025 Economic Leaders Meeting in Gyeongju, 31 October 2025.

“Amid global uncertainty, Prabowo’s assertive diplomacy signals Indonesia’s shift from moral idealism to pragmatic realism.”

Reflecting on Prabowo’s first year of administration, Indonesia has taken a pivotal shift in foreign policy. After nearly a decade of restrained diplomacy, the public now experiences a kind of diplomatic jetlag, shocked and uncertain about how to exactly respond to a new era of Indonesia’s assertive foreign policy. From joining the BRICS bloc and delivering a forceful UN General Assembly speech, to issuing a joint statement on the South China Sea and signaling openness toward Israel, Prabowo’s first-year diplomacy has been a series of bold and often controversial moves. These decisions, though seen solitarily as the unconventional acts of an emboldened military-style leadership, actually may be seen as the deep-rooted tradition of realpolitik in foreign policy, Indonesia’s greater ambition as a global mediator, and Prabowo’s own foreign policy agenda.

Reflecting on Prabowo’s impassioned UN speech, public opinion remains sharply divided, as one cheers for Indonesia’s renewed presence on the global stage, while the major other criticizes the president’s strong advocacy for a two-state solution. In that address, Prabowo emphasized a conditional peace, which he argued that peace in Gaza could only be achieved if Israel’s security was guaranteed and collectively endorsed by the international community. Although the position may have influenced further development and dynamics in the conflict, it has also sparked public debate, questioning the prudence and morality of his Middle East policy.

These criticisms stem largely from a domestic sentiment deeply rooted in Indonesia’s historical and moral alignment with the Palestinian cause. The public demands not only peace but also legal accountability for Israel’s actions. This expectation arises from shared identity and religious solidarity, as well as from Indonesia’s constitutional mandate: that independence is the right of all nations and that colonialism in the face of the earth must be demolished. These foundational principles, established by the country’s founding fathers, continue to inform public expectations that Indonesia should not engage in normalization, let alone recognition, of a colonizing state.

Yet, while justice for Palestine and sanctions against Israel may represent the most morally ideal position that the public demands, the pragmatic pursuit of peace often requires a different outcome, and sometimes uncomfortable approach. In international politics, peace rarely results from idealism; it is often forged through compromise, or coerced by power. Numerous intervening variables such as; power dynamics, strategic interests, and global alignments, shape these outcomes.

Prabowo’s recent foreign policy moves may be controversial, but they are not unexpected. In fact, they reveal a strategic logic behind his diplomacy. To understand his approach, we mustlook at two things: first, how Prabowo sees the world, through a lens of realism and power politics, and second, the nature of the international system itself, where power often outweighs morality in the pursuit of peace.

With over 35 foreign visits and multiple platform diplomacies in his first year, Prabowo fulfilled his campaign promises to make Indonesia actively engaged as a global mediator and in defining global orders. The words “power,” “oppression,” and “national interest” are familiar to anyone who has followed the former general’s speeches, from campaign rallies to international forums. With a nostalgic embodiment of our founding fathers diplomacy as a former colonized state, Prabowo often expresses his approach to international politics with a notion of ‘the strong dominates the weak’, and attempts to construct an idea that Indonesia, as a former colonized state, needs to rise in power to be defend itself from great powers’ influence.

This perception of global politics reflects a very realist power-structured framework of international relations, which explains his assertive rhetoric and foreign policy behavior prevail pragmatism over moral persuasion. Robert Jervis, a scholar from Columbia University, has reminded us in his work Perception and Misperception in International Politics, that perception (or misperception) of leaders could dictate the trajectory of a state’s foreign policy and decisions.

By acknowledging this embedded realist perception, it is feasible to analyze how Prabowo attempts to navigate the posture of his foreign policy in his perspective. The Realism school of thought begins with an assumption: the world is anarchic, governed not by moral consensus but by the competition of power, where the world operates based on structural power competition and that interaction amongst great powers determines the trajectory of world order. In an international structure where the United States continues to project its hegemonic strength, the political affairs in the middle east remain highly determined by President Trump’s decision to intervene in the conflict.

Prabowo’s act on supporting Trump's Peace Plan could be seen as an act of strategic compromise, to align Indonesia’s dream on bringing peace to the Palestinian conflict and aligning our foreign policy to Trump’s interest. Despite having to sacrifice our long-committed behavior of excluding Israel in diplomatic conversation, the act of compromise could be analyzed as an end that justifies the means. In an anarchic world where great powers shape outcomes, Prabowo’s embrace of the two-state solution reflects not moral surrender, but strategic realism, a calculated compromise to secure peace within the limits of power.

Though the peace plan’s effectiveness remains debated amongst international relations scholars and analysts, this foreign policy approach could be used to foresee how Prabowo will continue to execute his strategic diplomacy for the next years in office. Understanding this pattern of pragmatism will be crucial as Indonesia navigates future foreign policy challenges. Pragmatic realism is likely to remain the cornerstone of Prabowo’s ambition, to position Indonesia as a relevant actor on the global stage.

---

This article is written by Pancar Cahaya Tajally, a Student of International Relations at Tokyo International University. He also a Chairman of Indonesian Student Association in Kanto (PPI Kanto).