Indonesia’s Access: The Indo-Pacific’s Hidden Deterrence Gap
US, Australia deterrence strategies hinge on passage through vital Indonesian waterways, yet access remains underdeveloped.
As the United States and Australia bolster military infrastructure across the Indo-Pacific, a critical enabler of regional deterrence—access rights through Indonesia—is notably underdeveloped. Any significant conflict scenario would inevitably involve passage through Indonesian sea and air space, making this political and logistical challenge paramount.
Strategic Corridors at Risk
The operational effectiveness of forward-deployed forces, such as those in Guam or northern Australia, is directly challenged by potential transit limitations across Southeast Asia. Key maritime arteries, including the Sunda, Lombok, and Makassar Straits, are indispensable for mobility, resupply, and joint operations. Without guaranteed passage, deterrence capabilities are operationally constrained, creating a strategic vulnerability despite substantial hardware investments.
Evolving Alliances, Unresolved Access
Decades of US-Australia defense cooperation operated on an implicit division of labor. However, increasing US military integration with Australia, evidenced by rotational forces and infrastructure projects, necessitates greater reliance on transit through Southeast Asia. Agreements like Submarine Rotational Force–West deepen this interdependence but crucially omit provisions for assured passage through the Indonesian archipelago.
International Law vs. Practical Reality
While the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) grants rights for innocent passage, Jakarta’s stance suggests a willingness to regulate military transits beyond these norms. In 2018, Indonesia issued a directive requiring foreign aircraft to notify authorities beforehand. Following the AUKUS announcement, Indonesian parliamentarian Tubagus Hassanudin stated that the sea lanes cannot be used for activities related to war or preparation of war or non-peaceful activities.
Indonesia’s Non-Alignment Policy
Current strategic planning lacks a shared framework between allies and Southeast Asian partners regarding roles, thresholds, or access guarantees during crises. Indonesia’s steadfast policy of non-alignment means it will not automatically support Western operations and may actively resist entanglement. Relying on implied cooperation without explicit diplomatic groundwork represents a significant flaw.
Jakarta’s Strategic Autonomy
Under President Prabowo Subianto, Indonesia continues to prioritize strategic autonomy, maintaining balanced relations with the US, China, and others without formal alignment. This approach makes passive expectations of cooperation particularly risky. Recent engagements, such as Prabowo‘s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss strengthening bilateral ties and defense cooperation, underscore Jakarta’s commitment to diversifying partnerships. Indonesia’s decision to join the BRICS bloc in March further signifies a strategic pivot towards emerging economies, highlighting a desire for a greater global role independent of Western frameworks.
Stress-Testing Deterrence
Australia and its allies must rigorously test their strategic postures by modeling scenarios that assume denied access through Indonesia, including blocked sea lanes or restricted overflight. This ensures resilience under less-than-ideal conditions, preventing deterrence strategies from being shaped by assumptions rather than operational realism. Even if a formal closure of sea lanes breached international law, allies cannot assume Jakarta’s strict adherence if it perceives its neutrality or sovereignty threatened.
Coherence and Credibility
For deterrence to be credible, it must appear coherent to both adversaries and partners. Fragmented responses increase miscalculation risks. Regional alignment, even if informal, bolsters allied resolve. Indonesia, as a key geopolitical node, significantly influences regional dynamics. Quiet coordination with Jakarta would greatly enhance the legitimacy and operational reach of allied strategies, while hedging or neutrality could prompt others to follow suit.
Access as a Core Requirement
Indo-Pacific deterrence depends not solely on bases and hardware, but crucially on access. Strengthening presence in Guam and Darwin requires enabling regional passage, particularly through Indonesia. True influence hinges on building strategic trust through defense dialogues and sustained, high-level engagement that respects Indonesia’s autonomy while offering tangible incentives for cooperation. A forward posture is meaningless without a viable route through Indonesia; allied strategy must now treat Southeast Asian access as a core requirement for regional stability.
