Prabowo’s Personal Diplomacy Drives Indonesian Foreign Policy

Intensive Summit Engagements Reshape Global Stance

Indonesian President **Prabowo Subianto** has dramatically altered the nation’s diplomatic approach, personally spearheading foreign relations. Since his October 2024 inauguration, **Prabowo** has visited 26 countries for bilateral and multilateral discussions, a strategy known as summit diplomacy.

A Return to High-Level Engagement

Summit diplomacy, where leaders directly negotiate with counterparts, is a long-standing practice in international relations. Historically, such intense leader-to-leader dialogue focused on critical issues like war, peace, and global institution building, matters deemed too significant for delegation.

Notable historical instances include meetings between British Prime Minister **Neville Chamberlain** and German Chancellor **Adolf Hitler** before World War II, and the wartime conferences involving **Winston Churchill**, **F.D. Roosevelt**, and **Josef Stalin**. More recently, **John F. Kennedy**’s 1961 summit with **Nikita Khrushchev** and **Ronald Reagan**’s 1985 meeting with **Mikhail Gorbachev** also exemplify this diplomatic tool.

Broadening Scope and Personal Drive

In contemporary global affairs, summit diplomacy has expanded beyond “high politics” to encompass economic, technological, and regional agendas. **Prabowo**’s active engagement aligns with this trend, though his frequency and intensity signal a notable shift in Indonesia’s international posture.

This approach appears linked to a key campaign promise to elevate Indonesia’s global standing and influence. Direct presidential involvement amplifies national visibility and signals a readiness for a more proactive role on the world stage.

Mixed Results from Direct Diplomacy

**Prabowo**, previously the Minister of Defence, initiated foreign engagements even before becoming president. His proposal for a demilitarized zone and UN referendum in Ukraine at the 2023 Shangri-La Dialogue, made without consulting his Foreign Ministry colleagues, generated controversy.

His presidential summitry has also yielded successes. State visits to Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and European nations have been described as productive. Indonesia’s recent accession to the BRICS group, cemented by his attendance at the 2025 BRICS Summit, signifies a deeper alignment with emerging global powers.

A concrete outcome was the political agreement with European Commission President **Ursula von der Leyen**, which advanced the stalled Indonesia–European Union Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Furthermore, direct discussions with U.S. President **Donald Trump** led to a significant reduction in U.S. import tariffs on Indonesian goods, dropping from 32 percent to 19 percent. As of 2025, Indonesia benefits from the lowest tariff rate among Southeast Asian nations trading with the United States.

Risks of Over-Personalization

However, summit diplomacy carries inherent risks, with potential for limited or counterproductive outcomes. The 2018 Singapore summit between **Donald Trump** and **Kim Jong-un**, while initially hailed, concluded without a formal agreement and failed to curb North Korea’s weapons program.

The strength of summit diplomacy lies in personal rapport, enabling leaders to bypass bureaucratic hurdles. Yet, this personalization also introduces vulnerability. Diplomacy conducted without robust institutional backing or thorough consultation can result in missteps.

For instance, **Prabowo**’s November 2024 meeting with Chinese President **Xi Jinping** sparked criticism. A joint development agreement in disputed maritime zones was seen as disregarding the sensitivities of Indonesia’s ASEAN neighbors, potentially escalating tensions in the South China Sea.

Another initiative, **Prabowo**’s plan to evacuate 1,000 Palestinians from Gaza, also faced domestic and international challenges. His visits to key Middle Eastern countries did not garner widespread domestic support, and major Arab nations have explicitly rejected the relocation of Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank.

The Crucial Role of Institutions

These instances highlight a broader concern: while summit diplomacy can signal intent and build momentum, it often lacks the institutional depth for sustained policy results. Many high-profile summits conclude with declarations but few clear implementation mechanisms.

Effective summit diplomacy requires integration within a broader institutional framework. This ensures agreements are not only negotiated but also meticulously monitored, executed, and evaluated, especially in complex multilateral settings requiring extensive coordination.

Indonesia’s successful hosting of the 2022 G20 Summit offers a model of institutionalized summit diplomacy. Despite global divisions over the Ukraine war, inflation, and economic instability, the G20 produced a joint communiqué. This achievement was largely attributed to the extensive preparatory work by sherpas, who facilitated months of negotiations to achieve consensus among diverse parties.

As Indonesia, under President **Prabowo**, pursues a more assertive foreign policy, summit diplomacy will undoubtedly remain a key tool. However, to mitigate the risks of over-reliance on personal connections, it must be complemented by sustained institutional engagement, coordinated regional strategies, and clearly defined implementation plans.