Approaches to Indonesia's Foreign Policy: Area Studies,
FPA Theory, and Global IR
I Gede Wahyu Wicaksana1 and Moch Faisal Karim2
1International Relations Department, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,

Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
2International Relations Department, Faculty of Humanities,

Bina Nusantara University,
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
wahyu.wicaksana@fisip.unair.ac.id; mkarim@binus.edu
How to Cite: Wicaksana, I. G. W. & Karim, M. F. (2022). Approaches to Indonesia’s Foreign Policy:
Area Studies, FPA Theory, and Global IR. Journal of ASEAN Studies, 10(2), 161−180. https:/doi.org/
10.21512/jas.v10i2.9059

Abstract
The research traces the evolution of Indonesia’s foreign policy studies,
highlighting the major theoretical and methodological trends that have shaped
their current form. As a starting point, the research introduces a discourse on nonWestern Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), having developed beyond the dominance
of the Western-rooted International Relations (IR) discipline. Indonesia’s foreign
policy studies evolve through two stages. The first stage occurred during the Cold
War until the early 2000s. It demonstrates a scholarship development
characterized by an attempt to promote a national-focused or area studies
perspective, despite the influence of realism and positivism. The second stage,
visible since the mid-2000s, shows the advancement of diverse theory-driven
inquiries, having been moved by the younger generation of scholars more exposed
to various theories and research methods in IR. Dealing with these two phases of
the studies will likely build Indonesia's foreign policy studies’ inclusive, critical,
and unique identity. It can be realized by adopting and contextualizing approaches
offered by state transformation theory, critical realism, and reflexive theorizing in
IR to unpack the relatively overlooked aspects of Indonesia’s foreign policy.
Keywords: area studies, Global IR, Indonesia’s foreign policy, mainstream
theories, multiplicity, non-Western identity

Journal of ASEAN Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2 (2022), pp. 161−180
ISSN 2338-1361 print / ISSN 2338-1353 electronic
Received: 10th October 2022/ Revised: 06th November 2022/ Accepted: 01st December 2022

Introduction
The research examines the development of studies on Indonesia’s foreign policy. The
evolving discourses on the major theoretical and methodological trends influence the focus in
International Relations (IR) discipline. This inquiry is relevant for two interrelated reasons.
First, there is a growing interest in the Indonesian IR community to account for how IR is
researched, studied, and taught at universities and research institutes in the country
(Hadiwinata, 2009; Wicaksana, 2018; Wicaksana & Santoso, 2022). Nonetheless, the current
scholarly works on IR in Indonesia have yet to specifically highlight the evolution of
Indonesia's foreign policy studies. Hence, the research contributes to closing this knowledge
gap. Second, thoroughly exploring the crucial phases of Indonesia’s foreign policy studies can
help researchers and scholars better understand which concepts, theories, and methods are
most significant to employ for their academic purposes.
The research undertakes a comprehensive literature review between April and
September 2022 to collect related sources informing three essential components of the studies:
1) the most influential pieces, 2) the major themes of discussion, and 3) what ideas make
changes to the academic and practical interests. The research mainly argues that it is likely to
construct an inclusive, critical, and unique identity on Indonesia’s foreign policy studies. It
endeavors to locate the intellectual basis to found a non-Western Foreign Policy Analysis
(FPA) stream from Indonesia.
The remainder of this article proceeds in five steps to explore the arguments. The first
section tries to conceptualize what non-Western FPA means. The second part looks at the past
trends in Indonesia’s foreign policy studies from the Cold War until the early 2000s. Then, it
outlines the development of a scholarship found upon an area studies perspective besides
referring to FPA-dominant theoretical and methodological frameworks. The overview is
followed by a discussion of Indonesia’s foreign policy scholars’ tendency to improve theorydriven research programs for academic and policy interests. Next, it further progresses the
studies. In the fourth section, the research proposes prospective topics for the future horizon
of Indonesia’s foreign policy studies. The research considers the potential of advancing localbased knowledge by applying state transformation theory, critical realism, and reflexive
theorizing in IR. Finally, the research emphasizes the contribution Indonesia’s foreign policy
studies can make to project the discourse of Global IR

What, and Why, is Non-Western FPA?
The research conceptualizes non-Western FPA within the context of the evolution of
FPA as a sub-field of IR. FPA has developed since the 1950s, particularly at universities in
North America and Western Europe. Seen from the origins, it is understandable that FPA was
called part of Western Social Science. FPA was also labeled the core of the Cold War IR since
the former reached its impressive theoretical and methodological advancements during the
1960s and 1970s. It appeared along with the surges of dominant IR theories, such as

162

Approaches to Indonesia's

neorealism and neoliberalism. Moreover, traditional FPA concentrated on analyzing decisionmaking through ideas, institutions, and practices describing the preoccupation with high
political state-centric agendas, mainly military security, ideological conflicts, territorialism,
and proxy wars. An excellent reference to understanding this past picture of FPA is Holsti
(1996). However, following the collapse of the bipolar international system and the
intensifying impacts of economic globalization, contemporary FPA was born and
demonstrated the spirit to adjust to changes taking place in the real world and maintain its
relevance by embracing new theories and methodologies (Alden & Aran, 2016; Hill, 2015;
Hudson & Day, 2019).
Another significant development within the contemporary FPA is the emergence of
foreign policy studies beyond North America and Western Europe. The new platform of FPA
displays a broader geographical scope of the studies and appreciation of differences from
more nationally or local-oriented perspectives on foreign policy (Brummer & Hudson, 2015).
Hence, the research observes binary streams of FPA direction; the mainstream FPA keeps up
the preponderance of Western-centrism on one side and the pro-local non-Western
knowledge production practice on the other. The research settles the interpretation of the
evolution of studies on Indonesia’s foreign policy in this context of FPA narratives, shedding
more light on the latter trajectory.
Yet, the research underscores the importance of the locally-framed studies and research
on Indonesia’s foreign policy; it does not mean to discard the relevance of the existing
Western-minded FPA theories and methodologies. On the contrary, by exposing the
significant contributions of the locale, it aims to foster a view of a genuinely global FPA. The
research borrows the way of thinking about Global IR, as initiated and advocated by Acharya
(2014a, 2014b), and enriches its debates by unpacking the intriguing case of the development
of Indonesia’s foreign policy studies.
Acharya and other proponents of the Global IR argue that the study of world politics
has been hegemonized by theories and methodologies drawn upon Western (mainly
European) social, cultural, and political experiences. This knowledge system was then claimed
to be scientific with a universal truth, defying the rights of non-Western (beyond European)
societies to uphold their native intellectual traditions (Eun, 2019). The universalization of
Western IR must be rejected. The mainstream IR paradigms must be criticized. IR scholars
and studies beyond Western Europe and North America must promote their original ideas,
conduct theorization based on local knowledge and practices, and voice them in the
international IR academic media. These enterprises appreciate inclusivity and plurality in
contemporary IR. Over the last decade, the Global IR movement has risen everywhere, from
Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia, and Oceania, to Latin
America.
Building upon this feature of the contemporary IR, non-Western FPA is characterized
as: 1) produced through research emphasizing the saliency of local factors to explain foreign
policy behavior; 2) taking a critical position or criticizing the established FPA theory; 3)

Journal of ASEAN Studies

163

practicing reflexive thinking on national and international phenomena; and 4) acknowledging
pluralism and complexity of worldviews from diverse nations.
The characteristics contrast with the West-originated FPA, which upholds the universal
values of the major IR perspectives, considers all actors are similar or fails to distinguish
national or local uniqueness, and perpetuates the dominance of positivism as the philosophy
of research. However, it should be recognized that some local scholars prefer to use
mainstream theories and methodologies and otherwise. Therefore, the emphasis on nonWestern or Western FPA is more on the substance and process of knowledge production than
the person or institution behind it.
Promoting Indonesia’s foreign policy studies as a case for non-Western FPA is essential.
First, it can change the traditional understanding of the conduct of Indonesia’s foreign policy,
which is regarded as reflexive of foreign actors’ interests. Second, an Indonesian approach to
Indonesia enforces the view that the country has intrinsic importance to reach in the global
and regional arenas. Third, it opens up the space for new and different outlooks on
policymaking and execution in Indonesia.

The Space for an Area Studies Perspective
Influential literature on the origins and evolution of Indonesia’s foreign policy has long
focused on the so-called bebas aktif (independent and active) idea and practice as the principal
knowledge about the country’s diplomatic affairs and international activism. This knowledge
was produced and reproduced through the teaching and research of Indonesia’s foreign
policy, primarily referring to an approach introduced and developed by scholars such as
Leifer (1983), Weinstein (1976), and Suryadinata (1996). They provide a framework of thinking
and analysis of Indonesia’s foreign policy guided by the established realist dictum that
domestic politics is the primary source of foreign policy. Leifer (1983) explains Indonesia’s
foreign policy using factors like the nature of revolutionary nationalism, the dominant elite
interests, and patterns of political power struggles. Weinstein (1976) reveals a conservative
worldview that drove foreign policy under Sukarno and Suharto. Later, Suryadinata (1996)
adds other domestic considerations, including political culture and regime structure, to
understand Indonesia’s international leadership aspiration in the early 1990s. Although
taking different angles and highlighting diverse dynamics, such three works have said the
same: it would be better to study Indonesia’s participation in international politics by
advancing a national or local perspective.
In line with this area studies orientation, variants of positivism are employed to guide
foreign policy research. The inquiries began with establishing a general theoretical tool from
which essential concepts, including national interests, power, and diplomacy, are connected
systematically. In addition to these realist foreign policy metanarratives, a set of levels of
analysis is selected to help direct the empirical investigation into the most relevant factors.
Finally, particular local conditions are the basis for a hypothesis or argument. Of this
deductive logic, the most significant variables to examine are the characteristics and

164

Approaches to Indonesia's

consequences of regime change from Sukarno’s leadership (1945-1965) to Suharto’s New
Order (1966-1998). The result is an alteration in the state’s foreign policy direction, notably
from Sukarno’s intimacy with the Eastern Bloc to Suharto’s close friendship with the West
capitalist governments and international organizations. The selections of cases are reflexive of
the evolving conceptual guidance. Therefore, the conclusions are unsurprisingly predictable,
confirming the constructed theory’s applicability to the Indonesian context.
One of the crucial elements of the long learning process from Western scientific
instruments was Indonesian foreign policy scholars’ ability to translate the global/systemiclevel theoretical features into local-nuanced knowledge building. Although there has never
been any claim from Indonesian academics of a theory of Indonesia’s foreign policy, the
promotion of particularities is sufficient enough to recognize the value of ‘Indonesianism’.
The mainstream Western-centric FPA has been widely accepted and applied within the
Indonesian IR community. It is not only about realism’s entrenched influence on the older
generation of Indonesian IR lecturers, researchers, and practitioners trained in North
American tertiary institutions. The later acceptance of constructivism also convinces everyone
that Indonesia should not have a dream about indigenous theories. However, the awareness
about the meaning of difference and the search for the viability of the grand theories in
country-specific situations have arisen among Indonesianists. The decolonization of the Third
World nations successfully elevates the status of the colonized societies and brings their
intellectual wealth to the center stage of global academia. So thanks to post-colonial studies
with their emancipatory voices for opening up the covert South.
Local IR scholars in Indonesia have attempted to distinguish their views on Indonesia's
external affairs and actions from the dominant theories. For example, Indonesian historical
realism depicts the country’s nationalist elite’s outlook on the phenomenon of neo-colonialism
and neo-imperialism instead of the anarchical international system in Hans Morgenthau’s
classical realism and Kenneth Waltz’s neorealism. The historical realist texts were mainly
written during the 1960s (Abdulgani, 1964). Indonesian historical realists noticed that the
foundation of post-colonial organizations, mainly the Asian African Conference, which gave
birth to the Non-Aligned Movement, had informed about Indonesia’s highest profile foreign
policy achievement on the Cold War stage. First, Jakarta accelerated decolonization
worldwide. Second, it shaped an international order working beyond the great power
bipolarity, thus allowing the Third World nations to obtain their equal international status
and role vis-a-vis the developed West. This Global South project has received greater
intellectual interest today because of its persistence and potential agency in post-bipolar
world politics (Braveboy-Wagner, 2009).
Later, the regionalist vision adopted from the European experiences was localized in the
form of normative but functional regional institutionalism of ASEAN. It was to serve
Indonesian-defined objectives in Southeast Asia. Indonesia’s foreign policy activity is
continually understood as interlinked with ASEAN in regional geopolitics (Rüland, 2018).
Anwar (1994) provides an excellent descriptive analysis of the ideologically-led power politics
of regionalism in Southeast Asia and the significant contributions Indonesia and ASEAN had
made together to stabilize and secure the region. Anwar has become one of the leading

Journal of ASEAN Studies

165

references for ASEAN scholars to comprehend the inside picture of the first 30 years of the
Association’s development, certainly with Indonesia’s leadership role turning out to be its
chief institutional pillar. The discourse of ASEAN as Indonesia’s foreign policy cornerstone
was also vindicated by the regionalist interpretation of the intra-ASEAN interactions.
The post-Cold War international relations and domestic changes in Indonesia pave the
way for the mushrooming of epistemological reformism in Indonesia's foreign policy studies.
Following the rising popularity and utility of neoclassical realism, Rose (1998) first
familiarizes the term, and the two-level game approach of Putnam (1988), gains traction in
Indonesia’s foreign policy scholarship. Working from an area studies perspective, Sukma
(1999) studies how the regional and domestic environments had influenced decision-makers
in Jakarta to normalize relations with China. Sukma’s neoclassical realist modeling pioneered
the agenda of synergizing the currents of Western FPA theories and the local explanatory
variables. It matters when ones consider the foreign policy as the interface of internal and
external dynamics of the state. He (2008) applies this style of analysis in his work on postSuharto foreign policy, examining the impacts of democratization and international pressure
on Indonesia’s changing behavior toward sensitive security issues. Of course, in the way of
thinking promoted by Sukma and other neoclassical realists, the local circumstances are given
more weight in explaining policymaking, execution, and change. An essential historical realist
study with a leaning toward neoclassical realist analysis is presented by Djalal (1995). He
synthesizes geopolitics, diplomacy, and international law as the primary concepts to
understand the central position of the UNCLOS in making Indonesia’s modern archipelago.
Djalal has led many who study Indonesia’s maritime affairs and diplomacy to appreciate
normative reasoning behind Indonesia’s stance on issues like the South China Sea disputes.
The descriptive study by McRae (2019) is excellent reading for this case.
Nonetheless, recently, a disagreement has arisen between Indonesian realists and
regionalists, focusing on the prospects of ASEAN continuing to serve as the state’s main
diplomatic vehicle amid the multifaceted dynamics that have shaken the Indo-Pacific region.
The realists oppose ASEAN, but the regionalist defends it. Their contending opinions indicate
each other’s penchant for relying on certain domestic factors in explaining the country's
international priority. On one hand, the Indonesian realist version of geopolitics sends a
message of faithfulness to internal structural constraints on the country’s regional ambitions.
Therefore, a traditionally-maintained skeptical outlook on regional institution building keeps
on affecting. On the other hand, the regionalists and ASEAN apologists in Indonesia are
confident in foreseeing the relevance of ASEAN, even though the great powers are returning
to reorder East Asia (Natalegawa, 2018). Notwithstanding this inconclusive academic
contestation, it is favorable concerning local knowledge development.

Progress through Diverse Theory-driven Inquiries
Entering the 2000s, the second phase of Indonesia’s foreign policy studies has come
about. The area studies perspective remains essential in research and publication on many
aspects of the country’s international relations. Interestingly, Indonesia’s foreign policy
166

Approaches to Indonesia's

scholars are broadening the scope and substance of the studies’ theoretical and
methodological instruments. Theories and methods associated with constructivism, English
School, post-colonialism, and feminism in IR are engaged, thus producing a broader spectrum
of intellectual debates. However, it should be acknowledged that this positive development
in Indonesia’s foreign policy studies came late compared to FPA in other developing
countries, such as Brazil, India, South Korea, and Turkey. One might blame the long-standing
and unchallenged thinking of prominent academic figures and policy analysts who had
directed IR in Indonesia to become realist-thought and positivistic. They wrote textbooks and
published many pieces demonstrating the distinctiveness and effectiveness of the realistpositivist approaches. Since their works were considered compulsory reading materials for IR
university students, their way of viewing the world was likely to become hegemonic
(Wicaksana & Santoso, 2022). Suppose this academic landscape had allowed space for area
studies on Indonesia’s foreign policy, it can be considered it was a realist local foreign policy
epistemology.
In addition, although non-realist theoretical and methodological tools have attained a
larger ground in Indonesia’s foreign policy studies, the research and publication trends are
more interested in applying concepts and theories to empirical cases instead of building new
ones. Of course, they are critical of the established realist arguments, but none has shown the
will to replace realism as the dominant point of view. An excellent example is Laksmana’s
study (2011), which offers a counter-realist position explaining how Indonesia has
strengthened its regional and global profile. Laksmana shows that the successful diplomacy
of emerging powers varies from their material power possession. However, on the other hand,
it is underpinned by a non-material source of strength, including policy initiatives, advocacy,
and networks. A case in point is Indonesia’s peaceful process of democratic consolidation,
which has helped bolster the country’s international image. Furthermore, Indonesia is actively
fostering defense diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region, where contested big players are
embraced through the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) Plus. Despite its
interesting narrative and rich interpretation, Laksmana’s article lacks original theorization. It
focuses on empirical analysis of Indonesian-specific factors instead of formulating a theory to
argue against realism. A similar tendency can be easily encountered in many other works
using Indonesia’s foreign relations as an illustration to verify their critique of the realists.
Diversifying theory-led research on Indonesia’s foreign policy is more effective in the
middle-range theory application. Some streams of constructivism contribute significantly to
this favorable development. Role theory is well-employed by many scholars to discover the
ideational force that moves foreign policy. In the case of Indonesia, Karim (2017, 2021a, 2021b)
provides an advanced conceptualization of the state’s role and demonstrates the limits to its
pursuance. Karim’s role theory works have focused on foreign policy under President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration. He aptly utilizes role conception, contestation, and
legitimation theory to locate critical arenas of conflict of interest and identity between the
government (elite) and the mass (public). Besides this, role theory is relevant for analyzing the
limits of a foreign policy ideal and implementation. Therefore, as Karim argues, the state
needs to legitimize foreign policy decisions through two mechanisms: glorifying history and

Journal of ASEAN Studies

167

intensifying symbolic means to uphold national unity. Rüland (2017) also refers to role theory
to approach Indonesia’s foreign policy.
Middle power is a popular concept adopted by Indonesia's foreign policy scholars to
analyze the country’s position in various regional and global issues. The basic assumption is
that Indonesia stays between the powerful and weaker actors. Due to its limited economic and
military capabilities, Indonesia is not strong enough to control the external environment.
However, it is not merely the object of the big players’ influence and interest. Indonesia is seen
as an active and exemplary member of the international community that struggles through
multilateral diplomacy to order its immediate regions and promote global cooperation (Thies
& Sari, 2018). Proponents of the middle power concept in Indonesia's foreign policy expect
that by conducting constructive diplomatic roles, Indonesia could climb the higher ladder
toward international actorship (Rosyidin, 2017). This 'middlepowermanship' has risen to be
one of the most exposed foreign policy features since the Yudhoyono government has
deepened involvement within many world fora received worldwide appreciation. Acharya
(2014c) notes Jakarta’s rising global visibility as Indonesia matters as a newly democratic actor.
Domestic and foreign academics' enthusiasm to learn about Indonesia's middle power
importance has been presented in wide-ranging theoretical observations and methods of
analysis. The middle power diplomacy of Indonesia and other regional states creates a
security environment in which a rules-based order is its central infrastructure, and
cooperative diplomacy is its most favored approach (Abbondanza, 2022; Emmers & Teo, 2015;
Ping, 2017). However, the middle power concept is confined to the extent that domestic
politics, historical legacy, and strategic culture can interrupt the state’s stable external
relations (Beeson, Bloomfield, & Wicaksana, 2021).
Indonesia’s democratization provides an interesting arena in which foreign policy can
be studied differently from Sukarno’s and Suharto’s regimes. Democracy shifts the traditional
understanding of Indonesia’s foreign policy, an affair of the elite or high-level diplomatic
officials, to become more affected by nongovernmental factors. Policy-makers must
accommodate new stakeholders, values, interests, and problems, resulting in unintendedly
extensive debates on decision-making (Gindarsah, 2012; Wirajuda, 2014). Studies are
expanded to examine the connections between democracy and identity in Indonesia’s foreign
policy. It is an exciting theme because of Indonesia’s multicultural, multiethnic, and
multireligious social characteristics. In many respects, the state’s domestic politics and
international relations are steered by identity-related issues. Emmers (2021) acknowledges
Indonesia’s unalienable relationship between democracy, identity, and foreign policy.
However, the country’s improved quality of procedural democracy does not automatically
promote liberal democratic ideals and practices. Foreign policy scholars, particularly Sukma
(2011), who observe the implementation of Indonesian democracy, criticize the gap between
rhetoric and reality. Indonesia only talks about democracy but does not walk to meet it. This
critical voice extends to a pessimistic view of the ability and will of the Indonesian government
to democratize its regional foreign policy institutions, especially ASEAN, as noted by Rüland
(2021).

168

Approaches to Indonesia's

How Indonesia hedges against the great power is an attractive research question. To
some scholars and observers, hedging is perceived as the actualization of the independent and
active principle of Indonesia's foreign policy toward the post-Cold War power contests in the
Asia-Pacific region. Well-established literature on hedging strategy claims that middle-power
states will continue to take a balanced relationship with the competing, more prominent actors
(Jackson, 2014). It aims to achieve multiple objectives, from regime survival to war prevention.
Hence, understandably, strategic hedging consists of economic, military, and political
measures enabling the weaker states to maneuver flexibly amid the sharpening power
polarization of the stronger ones (Kuik, 2016). Indonesianists agree with such a conception of
hedging as the third-way choice. Indonesia has no sufficient material and diplomatic
resources to balance against rival China and the United States. At the same time,
bandwagoning toward each significant player is deemed unlikely for Indonesia's national
interests. A deep analysis of why Indonesia chooses an equidistant stance toward Beijing and
Washington informs three explanatory factors; elite perception, political culture, and
geopolitical dynamics. They explain why Indonesia tends to play the role of an order-builder
in the Indo-Pacific instead of building a formal military alliance with the great powers
(Wicaksana, 2022a). Indeed, Indonesia shows that the more minor power can utilize regional
institutions to support its agency.
The previous examples of middle-range theory-guided work on contemporary
Indonesia’s foreign policy support the agenda to substantiate local-oriented knowledgebuilding practices. The growth of more practically-oriented research on crucial policy areas
strengthens this progress. They usually take on current issues of concern to the government
and the public. Unlike purely academic inquiry, policy research does not produce
sophisticated conceptual or theoretical discussions. Instead, it aims recommend feasible
policy options to overcome specific problems (Elisabeth, 2016). Generally, the research
discovers the five most significant issue areas resolved by policy research: 1) Since Indonesian
President Joko Widodo launched his maritime doctrine in 2014, local and foreign analysts
have discussed its challenges and prospects; 2) Achievements and problems of the conduct of
Indonesia’s economic diplomacy; 3) Issues related to bilateral relations with regional
neighbors or international partners encompass various aspects of conflict and cooperation.
One topic which attracts considerable public attention is the ups and downs in Jakarta-Beijing
ties; 4) The realization of Indonesia’s ideas within international organizations; 5) Reforming
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and boosting the performance of the state’s diplomatic
bureaucracy.

Capturing Multiplicity for Global FPA
Having observed the two stages of the development of Indonesia’s foreign policy
studies, the research further elaborates on how to move toward the future trajectories of a
non-Western FPA with Indonesian characteristics. Borrowing from Loke and Owen’s (2022)
typologies of the mode of knowledge production practices, Indonesia’s foreign policy studies
can be localized and diversified so that their open, progressive, and unique identity is well-

Journal of ASEAN Studies

169

featured. The process of knowledge localization is something crucial to heighten the academic
benefits of the Indonesian IR community and FPA scholars. Knowledge diversification helps
the studies reach status and earn legitimacy in the eyes of global intellectual societies.
Drawing upon the existing scholarship products and the two reliable patterns of epistemic
activity, the discussion offers three prospective sites to Indonesian-ize PFA: 1) state
transformation theory, 2) critical realism, and 3) reflexive theorizing. The references to these
theories and methods are significant in the context of the emergence of multiplicity, which
depicts the nature of the current global politics. Acharya (2018) stresses multiplicity or the
multiplex world, instead of multipolarity or the multipolar world, to explain the necessity to
build polyversality in contemporary IR. It challenges the hegemonic status of Western
cultural, political, and scientific traditions.

State Transformation Theory
Critical political economists widely use state transformation theory to analyze the
dynamics of modern state governance. Jessop (2007) explains the dimensions of internal
changes happening to the state spurred by domestic forces and international influences. State
power, understood as the central government's ability to impose regulations on subnational
groups, is affected by social and political frictions, conflicts among dominant classes, and
transnational movements. Major political and economic players struggle for domination and
exploitation of vital resources. Hence, politics of scale turns into the logic of conflict and
cooperation among substate actors within the sovereign state. Hameiri and Jones (2015, 2016)
conceptualize the phenomena of state transformation into three models; decentralization,
fragmentation, and internationalization. They are utilized to explain how state transformation
has disrupted the making and conduct of foreign policies in rising Third World powers
(Hameiri, Jones, & Heathershaw, 2019). The findings are thought-provoking, arguing that
domestic actors’ divergent political and economic interests have interrupted policy
formulation and implementation processes usually controlled by the executives. It happens
even in undemocratic systems in countries like China and Saudi Arabia. As a result, complete
centralization of power in the top bureaucratic apparatus is impossible to occur in the modern
state.
Karim (2019) displays the usefulness of decentralization, fragmentation, and
internationalization to reveal center-periphery relations in cross-border regionalism operating
between Indonesia and neighboring ASEAN members. Such a general picture of state
transformation can be reflected in the Indonesian case. According to Karim, the local
governments, who have received more administrative authority to rule their regions, tend to
disapprove of Jakarta’s policy and enforce their rules over extractive industries.
Consequently, the miniregionalism projects, encompassing Indonesia’s peripheries and those
of ASEAN neighbors, become hot spots of contestation between the central and peripheral
administration structures. This vertically-contested politics is exacerbated by competition
among the high-level officials of in-charge state agencies and ministries, generating policy
inconsistency and weakening the execution.

170

Approaches to Indonesia's

Further looking at the impact on state power, as explained by Zakaria (1998), the low
degree of the central government’s policy enforcement capacity influences the choices for
international actions. The more power the state possesses, the more assertive its position
toward others in international and regional relations. On the other hand, the vulnerable state
will not risk expanding its interests externally. Employing this political economy framework,
Wicaksana (2022b) explains the reasons behind the failure of the Widodo government to
pursue its populist objectives through foreign policy. Widodo’s populism is effective
domestically, but it is not manifested in Indonesia’s pro-people diplomatic profile and
activism due to the enduring pragmatic orientation of Indonesia’s foreign policy conduct, the
fragmented and weak central government, and conflicting interests of the dominant political
and economic elites. They constrain any ideological motivation in the government’s
international activity.
City diplomacy is a prospective subject of study and research using the approach of
state transformation theory. Besides the ongoing importance of FPA within the frame of the
central government’s ideas and practices, the local leaders have also demonstrated increasing
attention, interests, and impacts in international affairs. Globalization creates a conducive
atmosphere where cities can develop their external relationships and build their institutional
power. Studies on city diplomacy are increasingly attractive to IR scholars, particularly since
enormous state failures have plagued today’s world order. Municipals around the globe
gather and move together to reorder the traditional Westphalian system. City leaders develop
many diplomatic networks to resolve transnational problems (Amiri & Sevin, 2020). How
Indonesia’s cities carry out their external relations, what drives them, and how they manage
the potential for conflict of interest with the government in Jakarta or the higher levels of
bureaucracy are essential topics that can be explored.
Moreover, the multidimensional crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that has
proven to be devastating to the state government shows that city diplomacy and international
politics are more connected. Local diplomatic channels and strategies can provide insights
into Indonesian home-grown international relations. One question in mind is how city
diplomacy can be situated within the framework of bebas aktif and what is at stake if city
diplomacy is highly effective.

Critical Realism
Critical realism is not a theory of IR. However, it is a strand of the philosophy of science
popularized by philosophers such as Rom Harre and Roy Bhaskar. Critical realists focus on
ontology. They argue against classical and modern philosophies which acknowledge the
existence of a single reality. For instance, Bhaskar (2010) claims that reality is stratified into
three layers. The first layer is an empirical reality that one can experience physically. A second
stratum is an event that is observable directly or indirectly using a particular technological
and methodological instrument. Finally, the most profound reality is a visible and invisible
mechanism, so the mechanism consists of the entirety of reality. It has structure and power

Journal of ASEAN Studies

171

that generate and operate the event and empirical reality. In IR, critical realism has been
associated with constructivism concerning the latter’s ontological ambition and scientific
practice. Some critical constructivists have even moved further to integrate critical realist
thinking into their epistemological formula, aiming to sharpen its explanatory tool (Fiaz,
2014). However, other IR scholars, such as Beeson (2017), criticize constructivist theories from
a critical realist perspective. Beeson notices that the underlying material structural power
moves international politics and security. Thus, what is commonly perceived as international
political constraints matter to state behavior. A case in point is the excellent power
competition in the Asia-Pacific, which has shaped and reshaped the region’s geopolitical
architecture for decades.
Despite the debate on the relevance of critical realism for IR, an important lesson can be
learned. Bhaskar’s idea of the multilayered reality sends a message that either positivist or
post-positivist research method prioritizes causal relationships is debatable. Instead, critical
realists in IR argue for causation (Kurki, 2008). The discourse on causation challenges IR
theories and methodologies on two fronts. First, it uncovers the lack of IR academics’
awareness about the possibility of looking more profound than the commonly grasped social
world. Second, the attention to the hidden structural forces and consequences has destabilized
the established notion that to be scientific; one must leave the unseen. Therefore, approaching
world politics through the lenses of critical realism means analyzing the multilevel presence
and operation of a particular phenomenon beyond human thought (Patomäki, 2002). Critical
realist FPA suits this direction. For example, Yalvaç (2012) approaches Turkish foreign policy
from critical realism. He finds that the concept of strategic depth promulgated by the
government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been constrained by the underlying hegemonic
structure that orders the region of Eurasia. Hence, the Turkish position on the world stage is
unchanged. Jeong (2019) looks at middle-power countries from a critical realist point of view.
Interestingly, it offers a distinct understanding of a network of like-minded governments who
identify themselves differently, not following the broadly understood definition of a middle
power.
Critical realism can help Indonesia’s foreign policy scholars to develop alternative
explanations for three questions. First, it is finding out how and why an idea or foreign policy
practice is maintained? The research endeavors to rethink the continuity of the state’s
diplomatic pillars, such as nonalignment; why Indonesia sustains non-aligned toward the
changing regional and global geopolitics is an under-research theme. Second, by applying
critical realism to understand the major events in Indonesia’s foreign policy evolution, it can
be proven that they did not happen unconditionally. Intangible structures and power
operated beyond the governmental office but led policymaking. Critical political economists
claim that an oligarchic system works behind the political stage to arrange strategic policies
(Robison & Hadiz, 2017). With this in mind, critical realism opens up the space for allying
critical political economy and FPA theory to studying Indonesia’s foreign policymaking.
Third, critical realism justifies deconstructing the general agreement on Indonesia's role and
position in the international system. Although many believe Indonesia is a middle power, it
may mean something other than such a conception representing the truth of the country's
international relations. The puzzle is what material and non-material circumstances have
172

Approaches to Indonesia's

limited Indonesian regional and global ambitions so that it is only positioned as a middle
power. Amid the multiplicity of today’s world politics, one can relate middle-power
diplomacy, multilateral institutions, and transnationalism as the ground upon which the
state's foreign policy is played out.

Reflexive Theorizing
The final recommendation is to confirm and contribute to the agenda of making FPA a
global field of study along with the expansive and impressive attempt of Global IR. What has
been produced on Indonesia's foreign policy is leading toward this project. First, the space
created for area studies-oriented foreign policy research and theorization is a promising
enterprise for an Indonesian-style FPA program. Second, the open-ended character of the FPA
studies on Indonesia is advantageous to the non-Western knowledge production paradigm.
Essentially, no one must rely on West-centrism in FPA to build competence and epistemic
community. For these two reasons, as Eun (2022) rightly argues, reflexive theorizing is a
crucial component of research and teaching contemporary international relations in Asia and
Indonesia (emphasis added). The FPA community in Indonesia and foreign scholars
interested in Indonesia's foreign policy have long comprehended the potential for an
indigenous theory. Still, they have consciously avoided it (we already mentioned this
propensity in the earlier section). However, in this section, it is time to change. The academic
and empirical momentums are ripe enough to do more work on Global FPA from an
Indonesian side.
Chinese scholars have given a worthy example of the effort to internationalize their local
knowledge at the Global IR level. Although the claim for an IR theory with Chinese
characteristics remains controversial in the eyes of the West-centric IR defenders, it does not
mean that the locally-grounded IR is unrecognized. Acharya and Buzan (2019) stress that
bottom-up theorizing will be more and more meaningful in the globalized international
society, where non-Western nations are increasingly culturally, economically, and politically
powerful vis-a-vis the declining West order. Reflexive methodologies and theories in the
context of Global IR promise a revolutionary reconceptualization of what it means by
scientific. According to positivists and post-positivists, scientific knowledge must be
produced through procedures that denote the reliability of deductive and inductive logic.
Whatever differences are encountered between these procedural ways of research, their
purpose is similar, that is, to enforce the Western standard of knowledge building. On the
contrary, reflexives commit not to bind their minds and practices to the established Western
scientific norms and rules. Principally, all scientific products are historical, cultural, and even
political. Every society is rightful to develop its worldview, including one on science.
Therefore, the claim of truth is reflexive of the prevailing social order.
Critics of reflexive theorizing are concerned about the strengthening ethno-nationalistic
interests driving the moves toward non-Western science. However, as critical theorist Cox
(1983) argues on the subjectivity of modern science, nothing is quite natural about academic

Journal of ASEAN Studies

173

activity. It is essential to advocate for legitimate plurality and inclusivity in knowledge
production. Indonesia’s foreign policy studies should appreciate the initiative to advance
reflexive theorizing. Scholars and researchers of the studies can benefit from the wealth of
Indonesian indigenous ethnic groups’ cultural, social, political, and philosophical traditions
to build distinct outlooks on the country’s external relations. There have been a few pieces on
this pro-local theme, such as Nguitragool (2012) on God-king and Wicaksana (2019) on the
family state.
Nonetheless, their interpretations are still limited to one element of the majority of
Javanese intellectual heritages. Reflexive theorizing can be more effective in undertaking pure
field research on the perceptions, habits, beliefs, and symbols expressed in various segments
of the Indonesian IR academic community. Little is known about why the long-standing
realist pragmatic-oriented foreign policy ideas of bebas aktif are taken for granted. Why not
think of a new different essence of bebas aktif based on the views of many social-cultural
communities in Indonesia? This alternative vision is likely to generate a more original notion
about Indonesia’s position in the world.
Another intellectual endeavor that Indonesian scholars can conduct is systematically
interpreting insights from great Indonesian thinkers regarding international order. Those
insights can enrich the debate on studying foreign policy in the country. For instance, Kusno
(2003) has successfully unpacked Tan Malaka’s understanding of the colonial city and informs
us about the discourse on people’s consciousness in the colonial world. The same line of
inquiry can be a pursuit to understand Tan Malaka’s ideas of collectivism and how it raises
the concept of Indonesia’s foreign policy toward order-making in the Global South.

Conclusions
The research has surveyed and interpreted two phases of development in the studies on
Indonesia's foreign policy. The first stage, shaped under the Cold War, though continued
through the 1990s, informed that mainstream Western FPA theory and methodology
mattered. However, scholars focusing on Indonesia's diplomacy and relations with the
outside world have made essential attempts to explore more local or domestic explanatory
tools to get better pictures of the decision-making and its driving force. This area studies
orientation contributed to substantiating the studies as only partially mimicking the Westernrooted FPA. At this stage, an identity with Indonesian characteristics was already formed. The
second stage of development appeared in the mid-2000s when the younger generation of
scholars was more familiarized with various new theories and research methods in IR.
Consequently, the area studies perspective that had made its way into Indonesia's foreign
policy analysis was recalibrated by adopting diverse theory-driven inquiries. Indonesia's
foreign policy scholarship becomes more colorful with the emergence of middle-range
theorization under the headings of middle power, democracy, hedging, and policy-oriented
research.

174

Approaches to Indonesia's

In addition, the research discovers and hopes to foster three intriguing themes in
advancing Indonesia’s foreign policy studies. First, the research notices the relevance of
thinking about multiplicity as the nature of the current world politics and order. Therefore, it
is highly likely to consider adopting the trajectories of Global IR in Indonesia's foreign policy
studies. The research offers three theoretical and methodological approaches; state
transformation, critical realism, and reflexive theorizing, which are relevant and significant to
provide critical, new, and visionary insights into the studies. First, instead of taking Western
scientific tools and procedures as the only standard of truth, Indonesia’s foreign policy
scholars can study from them and develop their original thinking. Second, by recognizing the
importance of both Western and non-Western FPA, Indonesia’s foreign policy scholars have
contributed to supporting the emerging Global IR and Global FPA. In other words, the
decolonization of FPA has made it a reality. Third, Indonesia’s FPA is a possibility when more
exploratory work on the covert aspects of the social phenomenon is undertaken, thus
invigorating the identity of Indonesia’s foreign policy studies.

About The Authors
I Gede Wahyu Wicaksana is a senior International Relations lecturer in the Department
of International Relations Faculty of Social and Political Sciences Universitas Airlangga
Surabaya Indonesia. His research interests include Indonesian politics, security and foreign
policy, ASEAN regionalism and international relations of great powers in the Indo-Pacific,
and non-traditional security challenges in Southeast Asia, focusing on climate change and
transnational terrorism. He has published in Contemporary Southeast Asia, Australian Journal of
International Affairs, Asian Security, European Journal of East Asian Studies, Journal of International
Relations and Development, Asian Politics & Policy, Asian Journal of Political Science, International
Relations of the Asia Pacific, and The Pacific Review, among others. Wicaksana is currently
working on a project on practical biopolitics of the COVID-19 crisis management from a
comparative Eurasian and Southeast Asian perspective.
Moch Faisal Karim is a senior lecturer within Department of International Relations,
Bina Nusantara University. His research has been published in International Relations,
Territory, Politics, and Governance, Foreign Policy Analysis, Third World Quarterly, Australian
Journal of International Affairs, Pacific Review, Asian Journal of Social Science, Asian Journal of
Political Science, Journal of Current of Southeast Asia Affairs, European Journal of East Asian Studies,
International Area Studies Review, and Journal of International Migration and Integration.

References
Abbondanza, G. (2022). Whether the Indo-Pacific? Middle power strategies from Australia,
South Korea, and Indonesia. International Affairs, 98(2), 403-421. https://doi.org/
10.1093/ia/iiab231

Journal of ASEAN Studies

175

Abdulgani, R. (1964). Nationalisme Asia (Asian nationalism) (2nd Ed.). Djakarta: Prapantja.
Acharya, A. (2014a). Global IR and regional worlds: A new agenda for International studies.
International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12171
Acharya, A. (2014b). The End of American World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Acharya, A. (2014c). Indonesia Matters: Asia's Emerging Democratic Power Singapore: World
Scientific.
Acharya, A. (2018). Constructing Global Order: Agency and Change in World Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2019). The Making of Global International Relations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Amiri, S. & Sevin, E. (2020). City Diplomacy. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Alden, C. & Aran, A. (2016). Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. Abingdon: Routledge.
Anwar, D. F. (1994). Indonesia in ASEAN: Foreign Policy and Regionalism. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
Beeson, M. (2017). Alternative realities: Explaining security in the Asia-Pacific. Review of
International Studies, 43(3), 516-533. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000018
Bhaskar, R. (2010). Feyerabend and bachelard: Two philosophies of science. In R. Bhaskar
(Eds.), Reclaiming Reality (1st Ed.) (pp. 18). London: Routledge.
Beeson, M., Bloomfield, A., & Wicaksana, W. (2021). Unlikely allies? Australia, Indonesia and
the strategic cultures of middle powers. Asian Security, 17(2), 178-194.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2020.1846525
Braveboy-Wagner, J. A. (2009). Institutions of the Global South. New York: Routledge.
Brummer, K. & Hudson, V. M. (2015). Foreign policy analysis beyond North America. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method.
Millennium, 12(2), 162-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298830120020701
Djalal, H. (1995). Indonesia and the Law of the Sea. Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International
Studies.
Elisabeth, A. (2016). Grand Design: Kebijakan Luar Negeri Indonesia 2015-2025 (The Grand Design
of Indonesia’s Foreign Policy 2015-2025). Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
Emmers, R. (2021). Democratization, national identity, and Indonesia's foreign policy. In
Rozman, G. (Eds.), Democratization, National Identity and Foreign Policy in Asia (pp. 141154). Abingdon: Routledge.

176

Approaches to Indonesia's

Emmers, R. & Teo, S. (2015). Regional security strategies of middle powers in the Asia-Pacific.
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 15(2), 185-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/irap
/lcu020
Eun, Y. S. (2019). An intellectual confession from a member of the “non-white” IR community:
a friendly reply to David Lake’s “White Man’s IR”. PS: Political Science & Politics, 52(1),
78-84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518001208
Eun, Y. S. (2022). Introduction: Southeast Asia in Global IR; A reflexive stocktaking in research
and teaching. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs,
44(2), 169-184. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/870547
Fiaz, N. (2014). Constructivism meets critical realism: Explaining Pakistan’s state practice in
the aftermath of 9/11. European Journal of International Relations, 20(2), 491-515.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066112466572
Gindarsah, I. (2012). Democracy and foreign policymaking in Indonesia: A case study of the
Iranian nuclear issue, 2007–08. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International
and Strategic Affairs, 34(3), 416-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1355/cs34-3e
Hadiwinata, B. S. (2009). International relations in Indonesia: Historical legacy, political
intrusion, and commercialization. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 9(1), 55-81.
https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcn026
Hameiri, S. & Jones, L. (2015). Governing Borderless Threats: Non-Traditional Security and the
Politics of State Transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hameiri, S. & Jones, L. (2016). Rising powers and state transformation: The case of China.
European Journal of International Relations, 22(1), 72-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1354066115578952
Hameiri, S., Jones, L. & Heathershaw, J. (2019). Reframing the rising powers debate: State
transformation and foreign policy. Third World Quarterly, 40(8), 1397-1414.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1594182
He, K. (2008). Indonesia's foreign policy after Soeharto: International pressure,
democratization, and policy change. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 8(1), 4772. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcm021
Hill, C. (2015). Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holsti, K. J. (1996). The State, War, and the State of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hudson, V. M. & Day, B. S. (2019). Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Journal of ASEAN Studies

177

Kusno, A. (2003). From city to city: Tan Malaka, Shanghai and the politics of geographical
imagining. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 24(3), 327-339. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9493.00162
Jackson, V. (2014). Power, trust, and network complexity: Three logics of hedging in Asian
security. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 14(3), 331-356. https://doi.org/
10.1093/irap/lcu005
Jeong, M. S. (2019). Critical realism: A better way to think about middle powers. International
Journal, 74(2), 240-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702019850190
Jessop, B. (2007). State Power. New York: Polity.
Karim, M. F. (2017). Role conflict and the limits of state identity: The case of Indonesia in
democracy promotion. The Pacific Review, 30(3), 385-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09512748.2016.1249908
Karim, M. F. (2019). State transformation and cross-border regionalism in Indonesia’s
periphery: Contesting the centre. Third World Quarterly, 40(8), 1554-1570.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1620598
Karim, M. F. (2021a). Role legitimation in foreign policy: The case of Indonesia as an emerging
power under Yudhoyono's presidency (2004–2014). Foreign Policy Analysis, 17(3).
https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orab010
Karim, M. F. (2021b). When trade and foreign policy collide: Indonesia in Doha development
round. The Pacific Review, 34(4), 605–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2020.
1724189
Kuik, C. C. (2016). How do weaker states hedge? Unpacking ASEAN states’ alignment
behavior towards China. Journal of Contemporary China, 25(100), 500-514.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2015.1132714
Kurki, M. (2008). Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Laksmana, E. A. (2011). Indonesia's rising regional and global profile: does size really matter?.
Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 33(2), 157182.
Leifer, M. (1983). Indonesia’s Foreign Policy. London: Allen & Unwin.
Loke, B. & Owen, C. (2022). Mapping practices and spatiality in IR knowledge production:
from detachment to emancipation. European Journal of International Relations, 28(1), 3057. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661211062798
McRae, D. (2019). Indonesia’s South China Sea diplomacy: A foreign policy illiberal turn?
Journal of Contemporary Asia, 49(5), 759-779. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2019.
1601240
178

Approaches to Indonesia's

Natalegawa, M. (2018). Does ASEAN Matter? A View from Within. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof
Ishak Institute.
Nguitragool, P. (2012). God-king and Indonesia: Renegotiating the boundaries between
western and non-western perspectives on foreign policy. Pacific Affairs, 85(4), 723-743.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5509/2012854723
Patomäki, H. (2002). After International Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re)Construction of
World Politics. London: Routledge.
Ping, J. H. (2017). Middle Power Statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia and the Asia-Pacific. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games.
International Organization, 42(3), 427-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25335.
96166
Robison, R. & Hadiz, V. R. (2017). Indonesia: A tale of misplaced expectations. The Pacific
Review, 30(6), 895-909. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2017.1306578
Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814
Rosyidin, M. (2017). Foreign policy in changing global politics: Indonesia’s foreign policy and
the quest for major power status in the Asian Century. South East Asia Research, 25(2),
175-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967828X17706570
Rüland, J. (2017). Democratizing foreign-policy making in Indonesia and the democratization
of ASEAN: A role theory analysis. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and-National Studies of
Southeast Asia, 5(1), 49-73. https://doi.org/10.1017/trn.2016.26
Rüland, J. (2018). The Indonesian Way: ASEAN, Europeanization, and Foreign Policy Debates in A
New Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rüland, J. (2021). Democratic backsliding, regional governance and foreign policymaking in
Southeast Asia: ASEAN, Indonesia and the Philippines. Democratization, 28(1), 237-257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1803284
Sukma, R. (1999). Indonesia and China: The Politics of a Troubled Relationship. London: Routledge.
Sukma, R. (2011). Do new democracies support democracy? Indonesia finds a new voice.
Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2011.0057
Suryadinata, L. (1996). Indonesia’s Foreign Policy under Suharto: Aspiring to International
Leadership. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Thies, C. G. & Sari, A. C. (2018). A role theory approach to middle powers: Making sense of
Indonesia’s place in the international system. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of
Strategic and International Affairs, 40(3), 397-421. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs40-3c

Journal of ASEAN Studies

179

Weinstein, F. B. (1976). Indonesian Foreign Policy and the Dilemma of Dependence: From Sukarno
to Soeharto. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wicaksana, I. G. W. (2016). International society: The social dimensions of Indonesia’s foreign
policy. The Pacific Review, 29(5), 741-759. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.
1047467
Wicaksana, I. G. W. (2018). The changing perspective of international relations in Indonesia.
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 18(2), 133-159. https://doi.org/10.1093/
irap/lcw014
Wicaksana, I. G. W. (2019). The family state: A non-realist approach to understanding
Indonesia’s foreign policy. Asian Journal of Political Science, 27(3), 308-328.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2019.1686997
Wicaksana, I. G. W. (2022a). How does Indonesia exercise agency in the contested and
complex regional environment? The Pacific Review, 35(2), 297-318. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09512748.2021.1998202
Wicaksana, I. G. W., 2022b. Why does populism not make populist foreign policy? Indonesia
under Jokowi. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 76(6), 634-652. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10357718.2022.2071834
Wicaksana, I. G. W. & Santoso, Y. W. (2022). Promoting Global IR under the dominance of
mainstream theories and the liberalization of universities: reflections from Indonesia.
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 44(2), 207-229. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs44-2c
Wirajuda, M. (2014). The impact of democratisation on Indonesia’s foreign policy: regional
cooperation, promotion of political values, and conflict management [Doctoral dissertation,
London School of Economics and Political Science].
Yalvaç, F. (2012). Strategic depth or hegemonic depth? A critical realist analysis of Turkey’s
position in the world system. International Relations, 26(2), 165-180. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0047117811428331
Zakaria, F. (1999). From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.

180

Approaches to Indonesia's