Dr. Ir. Imam Rozikin, IPU
Chair, APTIKNAS for Regional Government Cooperation

ASKARA - The world is entering a new phase of global trade confrontation. After a short period of de-escalation, tensions between the United States and China have reignited, sparked by Washington’s announcement of new tariffs on a range of Chinese products. This move is part of a broader U.S. strategy to curb China’s dominance in high-tech manufacturing—particularly in sectors such as electric vehicles, batteries, and semiconductors. What often escapes public attention is the ripple effect on the Global South, including Indonesia—not as a central actor, but as a contested arena in the struggle for global influence.

Trade War and the Crisis of Strategic Direction

In this evolving global landscape, Indonesia increasingly resembles a ship adrift without a compass. The government continues to trumpet export growth, seemingly unaware that global trade has moved beyond neutral state-to-state exchange. Trade today has become a geopolitical instrument—used to enforce policy, shape economic narratives, and project power. While major powers deploy tariffs and technical standards as tools of leverage, Indonesia has yet to answer a fundamental question: What is the purpose of our trade strategy?

A persistent flaw in Indonesia’s economic governance is the absence of a long-term, interest-driven export vision. Economic policy remains largely technocratic—treating exports as mere statistical targets rather than as instruments of foreign policy or global positioning. As a result, Indonesia struggles when faced with external pressures such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) or the U.S.’s stringent green trade regulations.

More troubling is the lack of support for local exporters. Many businesses report bureaucratic red tape, unclear fiscal rules, illegal levies, and the widespread practice of “shadow companies”—smaller exporters operating under the names of larger firms to gain market access. This points to an export system dominated by a handful of major players, marginalizing small and medium-sized enterprises. Instead of protection, the state often turns a blind eye to structural distortions—perpetuating centralized control and unequal competition.

In such a context, urgent geopolitical questions arise: Will Indonesia remain a passive node in a value chain dominated by others, or will it evolve into a proactive player that helps shape the rules and future of global trade?

Indonesia’s Reactive Trade Diplomacy

Indonesia is a member of BRICS+, a signatory to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a prospective partner in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), and is still negotiating the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with the European Union. Yet none of these affiliations have translated into a coherent national trade strategy. The government appears satisfied with simply being present in multiple forums, without articulating a clear geopolitical rationale.

Take BRICS, for example. Despite its potential as a middle power—with a large economy, strategic geography, and political stability—Indonesia has not maximized its position to strengthen collective bargaining among Global South nations. Instead, it often assumes a passive stance. The same applies to IPEF, where Indonesia’s participation lacks a strong push for green exports or sustainable industrial policy.

This reactive posture reveals that Indonesia’s trade diplomacy remains trapped in technical logic rather than guided by strategic vision. The absence of scenario planning or simulations for potential trade realignments—such as bloc fragmentation or ASEAN polarization—makes Indonesia vulnerable in a multipolar and increasingly competitive world.

Trade today extends far beyond the exchange of goods and services. It has become a lever to influence domestic policymaking. Developed countries use green standards, industrial regulations, and human rights benchmarks to pressure developing economies. Indonesia, in turn, faces lawsuits over palm oil, scrutiny over deforestation tied to nickel and coal, and growing demands to conform to global standards.

In this environment, the absence of a trade vision is more than a policy oversight—it is a symptom of fragile economic sovereignty. Without a guiding narrative, Indonesia remains on the defensive, responding to global changes rather than shaping them. Worse, this ambiguity fosters institutional fragmentation. Ministries of trade, industry, energy, and environment operate with conflicting agendas, undermining both market confidence and public trust.

A New Strategic Vision: Maritime, Energy, and Ecology as Economic Pillars

In response to these challenges, Indonesia must construct a new economic geopolitical narrative—one that is proactive and affirmative, rather than reactive. Two strategic axes can serve as the foundation:

1. Embrace Indonesia’s Maritime Identity
The sea must be seen not just as a connector of islands but as a strategic economic domain. Over 90% of global trade depends on maritime routes, and Indonesia holds immense potential in sea-based logistics, shipbuilding, port exports, sustainable fisheries, and ocean energy. Yet these sectors remain fragmented and under-prioritized. The once-promising “Global Maritime Fulcrum” vision has all but disappeared from national discourse.

2. Ground Trade Policy in Energy Transition and Ecological Sustainability
The global economy is shifting toward green and sustainable models. Indonesia must not merely comply with standards set by developed nations, but propose an alternative vision—one that is inclusive, just, and rooted in local contexts. Ecological trade diplomacy must be assertive, not submissive—negotiating space for sustainable development on Indonesia’s own terms.

Achieving this vision requires strong political will. Presidential leadership and commitment from economic elites are essential—not just to attract foreign investment or boost GDP, but to build a long-term national strategy. This strategy must transcend electoral cycles and be institutionalized as part of Indonesia’s long-term development roadmap. As a nation of over 270 million, Indonesia must move beyond being a trend follower—it must emerge as a norm entrepreneur in international trade.

Four Key Strategic Actions

To move forward, Indonesia must commit to four strategic actions:

1. Reorganize trade and industrial institutions around a unified, long-term vision.

2. Implement structural reforms in logistics and trade systems to empower local exporters.

3. Develop geopolitical economic scenarios to anticipate future global trade realignments.

4. Integrate economic security into defense planning, addressing emerging risks from trade fragmentation and coercion.

Without these steps, Indonesia risks remaining a mere transit point in global supply chains—a source of cheap labor and raw materials, easily replaceable and lacking influence. While other countries build capacity in green technologies and assertive trade diplomacy, Indonesia may remain fixated on short-term gains, losing strategic relevance.

Back to the Core Question: Why Does Indonesia Trade?

This is not a rhetorical question—it demands a strategic, values-driven answer. Indonesia does not trade simply to boost its export figures. It trades to shape a sovereign, equitable, and sustainable national future. The current global trade war is a critical test: Will Indonesia rise as a major actor in the global economy, or continue as a site of foreign consumption, investment, and extraction?

It is time to move beyond a passive economic paradigm. Trade must be reframed as a geopolitical strategy—not just a transactional process. And for that, Indonesia needs more than just a capable trade minister. It needs a government with a clear, unified vision of where it is going.