When people celebrate Valentine’s Day with various recreational expenses, Indonesian civil servants may have to embark on one of their most difficult episodes. The Finance Ministry has set the date as the deadline for a historically unprecedented budget cut.

Government expenditure is a key component of a nation’s gross domestic product, and any increase or decrease will certainly have a significant multiplier effect. At home, at least, a dramatic decrease in stationery orders, hotel occupancy and meeting packages must be compensated for by significant growth in other sectors to maintain desirable levels of economic growth.

Every government agency, both national and local, will receive a reduced budgetary allocation due to President Prabowo Subianto ’s decision to prioritize funding for his flagship free nutritious meal program. Only a few agencies are rumored to be exempt from this latest austerity measure, including the Defense Ministry, the National Police and the National Intelligence Agency (BIN). Others will need to downsize their programs, with the only exceptions being social assistance and personnel costs.

The Foreign Ministry is not, at least as far as news circulates, among those exempted. While the rationale behind the cuts is understandable, an indiscriminate reduction in the budget could significantly impact foreign policy, contradicting the image President Prabowo has been working to build.

Before implementing substantial budget cuts to foreign policy, at least two critical warnings must be considered.

First, foreign policy must be treated as a specialized area of public policy, as it is directly linked to national security and often involves a degree of urgency and emergency. The Foreign Ministry must have the capacity to prepare contingencies.

History has shown that Indonesia gained independence and survived the Cold War not only because of domestic perseverance but also due to the foreign policy efforts of its diplomats abroad. As global uncertainty increases, driven by intensifying competition among great powers, a dramatic budget cut to the Foreign Ministry could compromise both Indonesian foreign policy capabilities and contingency preparedness, especially when Indonesia’s foreign policy budget is already among the lowest compared with Group 20 and ASEAN-6 peers.

Second, the blanket efficiency approach may fail to recognize international trips and analytical work as critical pillars of diplomacy. Multilateralism, structured through international organizations, regimes and forums, facilitates information sharing, reduces transaction costs and provides solutions to collective action problems.

In an era when multilateralism is weakening, Indonesia must be prepared for increased bilateral and minilateral engagement. Diplomats must be well-resourced to maintain essential in-person interactions, develop multiple contacts in key states, conduct thorough fact-finding and intelligence gathering and produce meaningful analysis, not only for multilateral meetings but also to navigate evolving societies and governments in critical partner countries.

Additionally, there may be times when Indonesia must initiate minilateral coordination with like-minded states, which requires agenda-setting and exploratory efforts outside Indonesian diplomats’ traditional comfort zones. All of this demands more, not fewer, foreign policy resources.

President Prabowo has inherited a significant fiscal burden from the previous administration, which saw excessive taxpayers’ money spent on unproductive investments and extravagant festivities. Indeed, this is not the time for diplomacy centered on event management with lavish decorations.

However, indiscriminately downsizing the foreign policy budget without considering strategic consequences will not improve the situation either. Instead, it could turn Indonesia into a paper tiger, a diplomatically powerless country.

By nature, foreign policy is not a revenue-generating sector, but its expenditure should be better aligned with our national interests and strategic priorities. This means that foreign policy must be integrated into a larger framework of national security and economic strategy, where clear priorities and objectives are well-articulated.

If the blanket austerity measures are inevitable in the end, a strategic review of Indonesia’s international organization memberships, foreign policy actors and physical diplomatic missions abroad is necessary. This review should not resemble the erratic process of the Trump administration in the United States; instead, Indonesia should learn from the best practices of its neighbors.

Singapore, for instance, does not maintain as many resident embassies overseas as Indonesia, yet it invests wisely in the welfare of its foreign policy corps that contributes meaningfully to its foreign policy niche, such as international law. Similarly, Vietnam does not participate in as many international organizations as Indonesia, but its foreign policy is grounded in a robust analytical ecosystem of its diplomatic academy, rather than being dictated by impulsive decisions merely driven by the need to maintain omnipresent engagement abroad.

Despite differences between Singapore and Hanoi, their shared best practice is the treatment of foreign policy as part of national security. Other government agencies in these two neighboring countries demonstrate high respect for the expertise and leadership of career diplomats while acknowledging that foreign policy may extend beyond the Foreign Ministry.

In Indonesia’s case, the key lesson is to avoid oversimplifying national security by limiting it to the Defense Ministry, the National Police and BIN. Other agencies, particularly the Foreign Ministry, are equally vital and should be exempted from across-the-board budget cuts. It would be impossible for Jakarta to advocate for the Global South without sufficient financial resources, let alone maintain Indonesia’s dignity as an international leader.

Ultimately, the foreign policy budget should not be determined through a narrow lens of a spending account. Instead, a tailored approach is needed, prioritizing foreign partners and international platforms that hold significant value for Indonesia’s national interests. If certain missions or organizations fail to meet a strategic threshold, it may be time to selectively close diplomatic missions, relocate them to key strategic hubs and suspend our participation in several international organizations.

It is also important to remember that when it comes to the international community, although the international order may be shifting, Indonesia’s track record and reputation in various international platforms matter in deciding whether Indonesia is a reliable and responsible partner or not. While ASEAN will likely remain central to Indonesia’s foreign policy, limitless global adventures may need to pause until the budget stabilizes.

The administration must also clarify Indonesia’s positioning in a shifting world, define objectives based on national interests and develop a concrete strategy to achieve them while mitigating potential challenges. *** Andrew Mantong and Muhammad Habib Abiyan Dzakwan are researchers at the Department of International Relations, CSIS Indonesia.

This article was published in thejakartapost.com with the title "". Click to read: https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2025/02/12/a-tailored-approach-to....

Download The Jakarta Post app for easier and faster news access:
Android: http://bit.ly/tjp-android
iOS: http://bit.ly/tjp-ios