Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
INDONESIA'S FOREIGN POLICY IN ASEAN: A CONCEPTUALCRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL PEACE
AND SECURITY PARADIGM
Jandri Tuhumury , 2Ichsan Malik, 3Yulian Azhari, 4Rachmat Setiawibawa, 5Arifuddin Uksan 12345 Master Department of Peace and Conflict Resolution.
National Security Faculty.
Indonesia Defense University.
Jakarta.
Indonesia tuhumury@kn.
id1, ichsanmalik@gmail.
com2, azhariyulian6@gmail.
rachmatwibawa90@gmail.
com 4, arifuddinuksan123@gmail.
Abstract This study examines IndonesiaAos Foreign Policy in ASEAN through a conceptual-critical analysis of the national peace and security paradigm.
It explores how Indonesia reconciles its normative commitment to peace rooted in the bebas dan aktif .
ree and activ.
doctrine and Pancasila values with the pragmatic requirements of national defense and regional leadership.
Using a qualitative, literature-based approach, this research synthesizes academic works.
ASEAN documents, and official Indonesian policy statements to analyze the interaction between identity, norms, and security imperatives.
The findings reveal that IndonesiaAos foreign policy embodies a hybrid paradigm combining constructivist ideals of peace, cooperation, and mediation with realist imperatives of deterrence and sovereignty.
Within ASEAN.
Indonesia positions itself as a peace entrepreneur, promoting dialogue, preventive diplomacy, and regional consensus as instruments of stability.
However, this normative leadership is challenged by structural realities such as great-power competition, maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and non-traditional security threats like terrorism and migration.
The study concludes that IndonesiaAos peaceful diplomacy is both an ethical commitment and a strategic instrument for maintaining domestic and regional stability.
To sustain its leadership.
Indonesia must strengthen institutional capacity for mediation, integrate peace diplomacy with credible defense preparedness, and align domestic governance with its international peace narrative.
Keywords: Indonesia foreign policy.
ASEAN.
Peace paradigm.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.
0 International License.
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia occupies a pivotal position in Southeast Asia: a large archipelagic state balancing external pressures and leadership ambitions within ASEAN.
Its foreign policy, guided by the doctrine of bebas dan aktif .
ree and activ.
, seeks independence from major power blocs while promoting diplomacy and conflict resolution.
Through ASEAN.
Indonesia aims to mediate disputes and strengthen regional stability amid diverse political systems and security capacities.
Yet, this ideal of peace often clashes with imperatives of national security and geopolitical competition.
ASEAN functions as both a diplomatic arena and a strategic Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
Since its founding in 1967, it has served IndonesiaAos interest in preventing external interference, mitigating Cold War divisions, and fostering cooperation.
The free and active doctrine has allowed Jakarta to champion principles of non-interference, consensus, and regional identity.
Under Joko WidodoAos presidency, initiatives like the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) demonstrate IndonesiaAos drive to maintain order amid maritime tensions, great-power rivalry, and non-traditional threats such as terrorism and climate change (Zulkifli.
Wibisono, & Perwita, 2.
IndonesiaAos peaceful diplomacy manifests concretely in regional crises.
In the South China Sea.
Indonesia, though not a claimant, faces tensions around the Natuna Islands, where its Exclusive Economic Zone overlaps with ChinaAos Aunine-dash line.
Ay Jakarta promotes confidence-building and a Code of Conduct while enhancing maritime enforcement (Gasim.
In Myanmar.
Indonesia has employed ASEAN mechanisms, including the Five-Point Consensus, to address humanitarian and political crises after the 2021 coup (Kartiwa & Jalianty, 2.
These cases reflect IndonesiaAos attempt to reconcile diplomacy with sovereignty protection.
However, balancing ideals and realities creates contradictions.
While ASEAN norms call for restraint and consensus, sovereignty threats compel Indonesia toward more assertive measures, such as responses to Chinese incursions near Natuna (Wahid.
Perwita & Thamrin, 2.
Thus.
Indonesia continually navigates between roles as normsetter, defender of national interests, and actor constrained by domestic politics and external power rivalries.
Non-traditional threats like pandemics, cyberattacks, and climate change further test ASEANAos soft diplomacy and IndonesiaAos regional leadership.
The tension between ASEANAos normative limits and the need for swift action underscores the complexity of IndonesiaAos foreign policy paradigm where peace ideals must coexist with security pragmatism.
This research critically examines IndonesiaAos foreign policy paradigm in ASEAN, exploring how peace ideals and national security imperatives interact.
It draws upon case studies, policy documents .
AOIP, defence diplomac.
, and theoretical frameworks of constructivism and security theory to reveal how Indonesia balances identity-driven norms and strategic IndonesiaAos diplomacy reflects both normative aspiration and strategic calculation.
Constructivist theory, particularly Wendt .
, illuminates how IndonesiaAos identity rooted in anti-colonialism.
Pancasila, and regional solidarity shapes its commitment to peaceful dispute resolution.
WendtAos notion that Auanarchy is what states make of itAy explains why IndonesiaAos prioritization of consensus and non-interference is not mere rhetoric but a constitutive element of its foreign policy identity.
This helps clarify JakartaAos preference for dialogue over hard balancing, even amid external pressures.
Security theory complements Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
this view.
JervisAos .
security dilemma highlights how defensive measures can provoke mistrust, complicating IndonesiaAos efforts to defend sovereignty while sustaining ASEAN Buzan .
expands the security concept beyond military defence to include societal and political dimensions explaining how IndonesiaAos domestic vulnerabilities .
separatism, social division.
influence foreign policy.
Combining Wendt and Buzan suggests a conditional norm persistence: Indonesia upholds ASEANAos peace norms until insecurity forces reinterpretation, blending diplomacy with deterrence.
ASEAN scholarship, particularly Acharya .
, reinforces this synthesis.
His concept of a Southeast Asian Ausecurity communityAy shows that ASEAN norms evolve through interaction enabling cooperation yet constraining rapid responses.
Indonesia embodies this duality:
invoking ASEANAos normative language to legitimate peaceful engagement while occasionally asserting defence measures to uphold sovereignty.
Empirical studies (Sukma, 2017.
Laksmana, 2.
confirm that domestic identity debates and civilAemilitary dynamics periodically recalibrate IndonesiaAos peace-oriented diplomacy toward defence readiness.
Taken together, the literature provides a conceptual lens for understanding IndonesiaAos national peace and security paradigm as a hybrid identity: peace-oriented yet strategically Constructivism explains the persistence of IndonesiaAos normative diplomacy within ASEAN, while security theory elucidates the pragmatic adjustments necessitated by material The interplay of these frameworks reveals that IndonesiaAos foreign policy is not a static adherence to ASEAN ideals but a dynamic negotiation between regional identity and national defence imperatives anchoring its role as both a norm entrepreneur and a security actor in Southeast Asia.
METHODOLOGY
This research adopts a qualitative approach with a conceptual-critical analysis design.
This approach is most appropriate for understanding the philosophical and normative dimensions of IndonesiaAos foreign policy, particularly how the ideals of peace and security are constructed, interpreted, and practiced in the context of ASEAN regionalism.
As the research aims to bridge conceptual frameworks with policy realities, qualitative methods enable deep interpretation of texts, discourse, and institutional behavior, focusing on meanings, values, and normative commitments rather than numerical generalizations (Creswell & Poth, 2.
The conceptual-critical analysis design is grounded in the tradition of critical international relations scholarship, which interrogates the assumptions underlying foreign policy doctrines and their practical implications.
This design involves two analytical layers which are the conceptual analysis that examines the normative and theoretical underpinnings of IndonesiaAos Aupeace paradigm,Ay and the critical reflection that assesses how these ideals are Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
operationalized in ASEANAos regional security dynamics.
The conceptual layer draws from constructivist theory, which posits that state behavior is shaped not only by material interests but also by identity, norms, and intersubjective meanings (Wendt, 1.
The critical layer, meanwhile, engages with security theory and critical peace studies, questioning how IndonesiaAos peace-oriented diplomacy balances moral commitments with the pragmatic imperatives of defense and sovereignty (Buzan & Wyver, 2.
This research utilizes a literature review design, focusing on the systematic collection, evaluation, and synthesis of relevant secondary sources.
The primary data sources include academic journal articles, books on Southeast Asian foreign policy.
ASEAN official documents.
IndonesiaAos Ministry of Foreign Affairs publications, and national strategic policy By combining these diverse sources, the research ensures both theoretical and empirical depth.
Literature review methodology enables the researcher to identify patterns, theoretical debates, and conceptual tensions across different scholarly interpretations of IndonesiaAos foreign policy (Snyder, 2.
The data corpus includes not only scholarly analyses but also official communiquys, speeches, and strategic documents, such as the ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint, the Indonesian Foreign Policy White Paper, and the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP), all of which reveal IndonesiaAos framing of peace and security (ASEAN, 2.
The data analysis technique employed is content analysis combined with critical Content analysis allows systematic interpretation of textual materials to uncover latent meanings, policy orientations, and recurring themes (Krippendorff, 2.
In this study, the analysis begins with the identification of key concepts, such as Aubebas-aktifAy .
ndependent and activ.
Aupeace diplomacy,Ay Auregional leadership,Ay and Ausecurity communityAywhich are then categorized according to their manifestation in official discourse and academic interpretations.
Each concept is examined for its ideological and strategic dimensions, revealing how Indonesia constructs a narrative of peaceful engagement while simultaneously responding to regional security pressures, such as the South China Sea dispute, maritime security threats, and great-power competition (Emmers, 2014.
Caballero-Anthony, 2.
The critical reflection component evaluates the congruence between IndonesiaAos peaceoriented foreign policy paradigm and the realities of regional security practice.
This stage involves contrasting the normative ideals espoused in IndonesiaAos diplomatic rhetoric with the actual strategic behaviors and constraints observed in ASEANAos security architecture.
The analysis explores whether IndonesiaAos emphasis on consensus, dialogue, and noninterference strengthens or limits ASEANAos collective ability to manage conflicts.
It also critically examines how Indonesia navigates the tension between maintaining its normative Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
identity as a promoter of peace and responding to the realpolitik pressures of safeguarding sovereignty and regional influence (Gindarsah, 2.
Furthermore, this research applies triangulation to ensure validity and reliability.
By crossreferencing interpretations from different types of sources such as academic literature.
ASEAN policy documents, and Indonesian official statements, the study mitigates bias and reinforces analytical consistency (Yin, 2.
The triangulated approach allows for the identification of both continuity and change in IndonesiaAos foreign policy discourse over time, especially in relation to shifting regional dynamics and evolving global order.
Through this methodology, the research not only reconstructs IndonesiaAos peace paradigm conceptually but also evaluates its critical implications for ASEANAos political-security community and IndonesiaAos national strategic posture.
In essence, the chosen qualitative, conceptual-critical, and literature-based methodology is designed to illuminate the interaction between IndonesiaAos foreign policy ideals and regional It positions IndonesiaAos peace paradigm not as a static doctrine but as an evolving construct shaped by historical experience, identity formation, and regional engagement.
The combined use of content analysis and critical reflection thus enables a comprehensive understanding of how Indonesia operationalizes peace as both a value and an instrument in managing security challenges within ASEAN.
RESULT
Table 1.
Key Dimensions of IndonesiaAos Peace Paradigm in Foreign Policy Dimension Description Serves as the moral and strategic Foundational Values base for IndonesiaAos diplomacy.
(Pancasila and stresses independence, peaceful Bebas-Akti.
coexistence, and multilateral Normative Illustrative Evidence Emphasis on dialogue, nonalignment, and active participation in global and regional institutions.
Promotes regional norms of non- Advocacy for the AuASEAN interference, consensus, and WayAy and creation of the Leadership in ASEAN cooperation as part of IndonesiaAos ASEAN Outlook on the Indo- diplomatic identity.
Pacific (AOIP).
Peaceful Mediation Uses dialogue and consensus- Active role in MyanmarAos and Conflict building to resolve disputes crisis diplomacy and Resolution peacekeeping operations.
Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
Dimension Description Pragmatic Security Illustrative Evidence Balances peace ideals with defence Maritime patrols around modernization and sovereignty Natuna Islands.
maritime law enforcement enhancement.
Flexible Application Shifts emphasis according to From post-Suharto Across leadership style and external democratization to JokowiAos Administrations strategic hedging diplomacy.
Adaptation Table 2.
Major Security Challenges in the ASEAN Region Security Nature of the Challenge Threat Overlapping South China Sea maritime claims.
Disputes Aunine-dash line,Ay and naval standoffs.
Great Power Rivalry (U.
Ae Chin.
Strategic competition and influence contests in Southeast Asia.
Regional Impact ASEAN/IndonesiaAos Response Threatens regional Promotion of Code of stability, navigation.
Conduct.
AOIP for and ASEAN unity.
inclusive dialogue.
Divides ASEAN and Neutral hedging.
ASEAN pressures small centrality, diversified states to take sides.
Terrorism and Regional terrorist Challenges law Counterterrorism Transnational networks exploiting enforcement and Extremism porous borders.
sharing platforms.
Irregular Displacement.
Humanitarian crises Migration and smuggling, and and regional Human cross-border human governance Trafficking rights abuses.
Maritime Security and IUU Fishing Regional task forces.
Bali Process cooperation.
Illegal fishing, piracy.
Economic loss and Joint naval patrols, and environmental ecological stress on capacity building, and coastal communities.
marine governance.
Table 3.
The Paradox of Peaceful Foreign Policy Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
Aspect Normative Ideal Illustrative Realist Constraint Example Diplomatic Prioritizes peace.
Requires deterrence Maritime build-up Idealism vs.
dialogue, and non- and defence despite peace Strategic Survival Domestic Uses peace narrative Public demands Debates on Natuna Consensus vs.
to maintain political stronger defence amid patrols and military external threats.
Relies on ASEANAos Great-power AeChina tensions consensus-based competition bypasses over Indo-Pacific ASEAN mechanisms.
Security Pressures legitimacy.
Institutional Norms Power Politics Soft Diplomacy vs.
Material Credibility Soft power through peacebuilding and Lack of hard power may invite coercion.
Balancing AOIP with bilateral defence Table 4.
Conflict Resolution as a Foreign Policy Instrument Function Preventive Diplomacy Strategic Purpose Example of Application Policy Outcome Avoid escalation and Indonesian Prevented further regional maintain ASEAN facilitation in division and legitimized Myanmar crisis.
ASEANAos mediating role.
Transform internal or Peace Mediation regional conflicts into Aceh Peace Reinforced IndonesiaAos image as peacebuilder.
Process .
Norm Diffusion and Localization Capacity Building and Defence Diplomacy Embed peace values in regional Enhance institutional resilience through non-military means.
AOIP.
ARF.
ADMM- Institutionalized cooperative Plus initiatives.
UN peacekeeping security norms.
Improved crisis management and Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
Function Strategic Deterrence Create high political costs for aggression.
Cooperation Example of Strategic Purpose Policy Outcome Application ASEAN joint patrols and maritime confidence-building.
Reinforced credibility of peace paradigm.
DISCUSSION
IndonesiaAos foreign policy in ASEAN reflects a sophisticated synthesis between normative commitment and pragmatic adaptation.
The Aupeace paradigm,Ay as evidenced in the results, functions as a dual instrument anchoring diplomacy in moral legitimacy while preserving strategic flexibility.
Rooted in Pancasila and the bebas-aktif doctrine.
IndonesiaAos external orientation upholds an image of independence and moderation (Wicaksana & Karim, 2.
These foundational values shape IndonesiaAos approach to international politics as a moral actor rather than a coercive power, a perspective deeply embedded in its historical experience of anti-colonialism and regional leadership.
However, the tables illustrate that this paradigm operates within a complex environment characterized by security challenges and power asymmetries.
As Table 2 demonstrates.
ASEANAos regional landscape combines traditional disputes, such as the South China Sea conflict, with non-traditional threats including terrorism, migration, and maritime insecurity.
IndonesiaAos diplomacy thus unfolds within what Acharya .
calls a Aunorm localization processAy, where universal norms like peace and democracy are adapted to fit regional The AOIP and ASEAN Regional Forum embody this adaptive model institutions that internalize peace norms while responding to new strategic pressures.
The first major finding concerns the hybrid nature of IndonesiaAos peace paradigm.
The data show that JakartaAos diplomacy is neither pacifist nor purely defensive but hybrid and Indonesia champions the AuASEAN WayAy of consensus and non-interference to maintain unity, yet simultaneously upgrades its maritime and defence capabilities to deter sovereignty violations (Gasim, 2.
This tension aligns with BuzanAos .
argument that security operates across multiple levels the individual, societal, and state requiring flexibility in In practice.
IndonesiaAos military modernization, coupled with its peace rhetoric, demonstrates what Jervis .
identified as the security dilemma: actions taken to ensure self-defence may be perceived as assertive by others.
Consequently.
Indonesia must engage in strategic reassurance, using diplomacy to signal peaceful intent even as it strengthens its deterrent posture.
Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
A second key pattern concerns ASEANAos constrained institutional capacity.
As Table 2 reveals.
ASEANAos collective responses to great-power rivalry and non-traditional threats often lack coherence.
The South China Sea issue, for example, exposes how diverging national interests and dependency patterns undermine consensus (Hu, 2023.
Zha, 2.
IndonesiaAos response prioritizing ASEAN centrality and promoting AOIP illustrates an effort to reaffirm ASEANAos relevance as a stabilizing institution.
Through this approach.
Jakarta repositions itself as both a guardian of regional norms and a mediator of strategic anxieties among member states.
The policy of neutrality and inclusive dialogue functions as both moral signalling and practical containment of geopolitical rivalry (Khoo, 2022.
Zhang, 2.
Yet, the peaceAesecurity paradox (Table .
remains persistent.
As Chandler and Heins .
note, states that embrace peace-oriented foreign policies often face dilemmas between moral legitimacy and strategic survival.
IndonesiaAos challenge lies in maintaining its normative leadership without appearing nayve or unprepared.
This dualism has manifested repeatedly from its cautious stance in MyanmarAos crisis to its measured responses to Chinese incursions near Natuna (Wahid.
Perwita, & Thamrin, 2.
Theoretical frameworks from constructivism (Wendt, 1.
and security theory (Buzan, 1991.
Jervis, 1.
provide an explanatory lens:
IndonesiaAos identity-based norms define the acceptable boundaries of state behavior, but material constraints and power realities periodically force pragmatic recalibration.
The domestic political dimension further complicates this balance.
As Kertzer .
emphasizes, public opinion and leadership narratives influence how foreign policy ideals are Indonesian leaders often frame peace-oriented diplomacy as an extension of national identity, yet domestic audiences may interpret restraint as weakness.
Consequently, governments must maintain legitimacy by demonstrating capability, hence the coexistence of peace rhetoric and investments in defence modernization.
This interplay of idealism and realism supports the constructivist claim that norms and interests are co-constitutive rather than mutually exclusive (Wendt, 1.
The results in Table 4 underscore the instrumental value of conflict resolution in IndonesiaAos diplomacy.
Conflict resolution mechanisms such as mediation, preventive diplomacy, and capacity-building serve as both tools of peace and strategies of influence.
The Aceh peace process .
exemplifies IndonesiaAos ability to translate internal conflict management into a showcase of diplomatic skill (USIP, 2006.
Awaluddin, 2.
This success strengthened IndonesiaAos legitimacy as a mediator and reinforced the perception of ASEAN as a viable regional framework for peacebuilding.
In constructivist terms, this represents norm diffusion, where IndonesiaAos identity as a peacebuilder shapes regional expectations and behaviors (Acharya, 2004.
Caballero-Anthony, 2.
Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
At the regional level.
JakartaAos reliance on ASEAN-centric conflict management also reflects a strategic calculus.
By embedding conflict resolution in ASEAN mechanisms.
Indonesia prevents the intrusion of external powers into regional affairs, thus preserving strategic autonomy.
The ASEAN Defence MinistersAo Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plu.
and AOIP are not merely symbolic but institutional innovations that operationalize IndonesiaAos normative As Capie .
argues, peace operations and security dialogues enhance not only legitimacy but also state capacity, by improving coordination and readiness for humanitarian and security contingencies.
The discussion must also address the limits of peaceful diplomacy.
Although IndonesiaAos mediation efforts have contributed to ASEANAos credibility, they are sometimes criticized for excessive caution or lack of enforcement.
Kaufman .
and Klimov .
argue that Auquiet diplomacyAy can unintentionally sustain stalemates, as seen in MyanmarAos crisis where ASEANAos Five-Point Consensus faced implementation challenges.
For Indonesia, sustaining credibility requires complementing normative rhetoric with tangible mechanisms such as legal frameworks, early-warning systems, and international partnerships capable of providing guarantees when crises escalate (Caballero-Anthony, 2.
This illustrates the operational paradox: peace diplomacy demands both moral authority and technical capability.
From a theoretical standpoint.
IndonesiaAos approach embodies what can be termed conditional norm persistence, a dynamic process in which peace-oriented norms endure until material threats compel reinterpretation.
This concept synthesizes WendtAos .
constructivism with BuzanAos .
security theory: identity provides continuity, while threat perception drives adaptation.
IndonesiaAos diplomacy exemplifies this hybrid model, where values and pragmatism interact dialectically rather than hierarchically.
The long-term implication of this paradigm is that Indonesia positions itself as a regional stabilizer through moral authority, not coercive dominance.
Its leadership in ASEANAos peace and security architecture demonstrates that middle powers can exert influence through ideational and institutional means.
This aligns with Caballero-AnthonyAos .
notion of cooperative security, which integrates peace promotion with collective preparedness.
The gradual expansion of joint maritime exercises and peacekeeping cooperation in ASEAN illustrates how normative leadership can evolve into concrete security contributions.
Finally.
IndonesiaAos foreign policy trajectory reveals an emerging integrative strategy.
Rather than viewing peace and security as oppositional.
Jakarta increasingly treats them as mutually reinforcing.
Conflict resolution becomes a mechanism for safeguarding national security, while defensive readiness legitimizes IndonesiaAos moral standing in promoting peace.
This synthesis represents the maturation of IndonesiaAos diplomacy, a balance between idealism and realism that is adaptive to changing regional dynamics.
Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
In conclusion, the analysis of results shows that IndonesiaAos peace paradigm is not static doctrine but a living strategy rooted in identity and sustained by pragmatic adjustments.
The integration of constructivist and security perspectives demonstrates that IndonesiaAos commitment to peace operates as both a normative compass and a strategic instrument.
Through ASEAN.
Indonesia continues to mediate between power politics and cooperative norms, exemplifying how a middle power can sustain stability in a contested Indo-Pacific.
The enduring challenge, however, remains balancing moral leadership with credible deterrence, a paradox that will define IndonesiaAos regional diplomacy in the decades ahead.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study reveal that IndonesiaAos foreign policy within ASEAN operates within a complex paradigm that seeks to reconcile the ideals of peace with the imperatives of national security.
The countryAos long-standing commitment to the doctrine of bebas dan aktif .
ree and activ.
and the principles of Pancasila has shaped its diplomatic culture as one grounded in moderation, dialogue, and multilateralism.
This Aupeace paradigmAy positions Indonesia as both a moral and strategic leader in Southeast Asia, one that consistently promotes consensus, mediation, and conflict prevention as the foundation of regional stability.
However, this idealism exists in continuous tension with the realities of regional insecurity, including traditional threats such as maritime disputes in the South China Sea and nontraditional challenges like terrorism, human trafficking, and humanitarian crises.
From a conceptual-critical perspective.
IndonesiaAos foreign policy is best understood as a hybrid construct of one that integrates constructivist norms of identity, cooperation, and regionalism with realist concerns for deterrence, defense, and sovereignty.
The peace paradigm thus functions as both a moral compass and a strategic framework.
While IndonesiaAos identity as a peace actor reinforces its credibility and legitimacy in ASEAN diplomacy, its leadership also requires the pragmatic ability to safeguard national interests and respond to coercive pressures from great powers.
This duality reflects what can be termed the Auparadox of peaceAy: the pursuit of peaceful engagement often demands strength, preparedness, and strategic foresight.
The ability to sustain this balance determines whether IndonesiaAos foreign policy can continue to serve as a stabilizing force in the evolving IndoPacific order.
In practical terms.
IndonesiaAos reliance on mediation, dialogue facilitation, and preventive diplomacy has elevated its standing as a regional bridge-builder.
Through initiatives such as the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP), its leadership in the Myanmar crisis mediation, and its advocacy for a binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.
Indonesia has reaffirmed ASEANAos centrality while subtly reinforcing its own influence.
Nevertheless, the Aksaqila International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal [AIHSS] Vol 4 Nomor 2 Agustus 2025, hal: 23-35
ISSN: 2964-8831
study highlights that such normative leadership must be matched by institutional capacity and political will.
The limits of Auquiet diplomacy,Ay for instance, become evident when regional crises demand swift collective action that consensus-driven mechanisms struggle to deliver.
REFERENCES