Jakarta – Indonesia has signed a package deal with the United States, anchored by the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) and accompanied by what appears to be a series of "sweetener" transactions: large purchases and cooperation pledges designed to rebalance trade and signal political alignment.
At a glance, the agreement offers tariff relief and preferential treatment for key exports. However, if we dig deeper, it risks turning trade policy into a geopolitical instrument that narrows Indonesia's freedom of action: precisely what our "free and active" foreign policy doctrine was built to avoid.
Luckily for us and the rest of the world, the US Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Pending any follow-up adjustments, we should use this opportunity to slow down and reflect on what we can still gain.
No one should underestimate the appeal of market access. The government has argued the ART cushions labor-intensive sectors from a tariff shock and gives exporters breathing room, and these certainly matter.
But trade deals are not only judged by what they cut today. They should also be judged by what they bind tomorrow, and Indonesia should be alarmed by provisions that appear to reach beyond tariffs into the domain of strategic alignment, an area our diplomacy has historically treated as conscious, sovereign choices made in the national interest.
This is where the geopolitical implications begin.
Article 5.1 of the ART stipulates that if the US restricts a third party's goods or services to protect its interests, Indonesia "shall adopt or maintain a measure with equivalent restrictive effect" as the US measure.
This effectively tethers Indonesia's policy space to Washington's "national and economic security" measures or assumes leverage over Indonesia's future agreements with another country, turning the pact beyond a commercial arrangement and into an economic security instrument.
The US has every right to pursue its interests, but Indonesia has every obligation to ensure that we are not importing another country's interests into our own rule book.
Some might suggest that Indonesia can still interpret and implement the ART narrowly, but that is not how asymmetry works. Big powers do not need to win arguments in writing; they win them in practice. When the US uses "alliance" to frame a deal, it is not merely semantics; it signals expectations. And expectations are a form of geopolitical pressure.
This is not simply a China versus US matter. President Prabowo Subianto might believe we must swing closer to Washington to hedge against Beijing. Many Indonesians would sympathize with the impulse to diversify partnerships, but diversification is not substitution.
Our free and active policy does not swap dependence from one pole to another. It preserves room to maneuver, especially when rival powers demand alignment through trade, technology controls, sanctions or supply chain carve-outs.
This is why the "sweeteners" warrant scrutiny. When a tariff pact is paired with commodity and procurement commitments, such as soybeans, wheat, cotton, corn, energy and aircraft parts, the people are owed a clear explanation of what is commercial necessity and what is geopolitical signaling.
If Indonesia needs those products anyway, then their inclusion as headline-grabbing side deals is simply theater. However, if their inclusion aims to displace alternative suppliers to fulfill an expectation of "rebalancing", then we are paying a geopolitical premium, possibly at the expense of competition and price. This concern is not anti-American but pro-accountability.
In the midst of this uncertain grace period accorded by the US court ruling, the government should, first and foremost, be clear about what we stand to gain and lose. Habitual nondisclosure may be convenient for negotiators, but it is corrosive for democratic legitimacy.
Further, the legislature must exercise strict oversight and put together an exit strategy to ensure that the executive doesn't sell Indonesia's soul for mere concessions.
We should never trade our sovereignty. A trade deal is necessary, but a sovereignty bargain is not.
Source: https://asianews.network/sovereignty-for-soybeans-the-jakarta-post