The decline of US soft power in Indonesia has significant implications not just for Washington, but also for Taiwan. As US public diplomacy retreats, particularly with cuts to Voice of America (VOA) and the US Agency for International Development, the space for balanced geopolitical discourse in Indonesia is shrinking. In this vacuum, Chinese narratives — especially regarding Taiwan — are poised to dominate Indonesia’s public perception, reinforcing Beijing’s strategic priorities.
Indonesia has long adhered to a cautious stance on Taiwan, maintaining its “one China” policy while avoiding direct engagement with the Taiwan issue. Despite its democratic values and economic dynamism, Taiwan has struggled to make its voice heard in Indonesia.
This cautious approach is largely driven by Indonesia’s economic dependency on Beijing. Without robust soft-power engagement, Taiwanese perspectives risk being drowned out by Chinese narratives, which are increasingly amplified through state-sponsored media, economic partnerships and religious diplomacy.
For years, VOA Indonesia and Radio Free Asia served as critical channels for democratic discourse, offering alternative perspectives on global affairs, including cross-strait relations. Its shutdown means Indonesian audiences will have fewer sources of balanced information on Taiwan, leaving Chinese state-controlled media, such as Xinhua and CGTN, to shape the narrative unchallenged.
These platforms already have the potential to dominate Indonesian-language news on Taiwan, possibly framing it as an inseparable part of China and downplaying discussions on Taiwan’s democratic achievements or its independent global economic contributions.
China’s strategic engagement with Indonesia extends beyond the media. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, scholarships, and state-backed partnerships with Indonesian think tanks and universities, Beijing has entrenched its influence in key opinion-shaping sectors. By funding research grants, providing technical assistance and inviting Indonesian academics to China, Beijing could reframe Taiwan-related discourse to align with its “one China” stance.
Furthermore, China has actively engaged Indonesia’s powerful Muslim organizations, such as Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, fostering closer ties through scholarships, cultural exchanges and religious diplomacy. Beijing’s efforts to build relationships within Indonesia’s Islamic communities have softened criticism of its domestic policies, including its treatment of Uighur Muslims. This religious engagement strategy could also extend to shaping narratives about Taiwan, potentially framing it as a geopolitical irritant rather than a legitimate political entity with its own governance and aspirations.
Taiwan must strengthen its soft power in Indonesia by expanding media outreach, enhancing academic collaborations and fostering economic ties. Investing in Indonesian-language media and working with independent outlets can provide alternative perspectives on cross-strait relations. Strengthening academic partnerships through scholarships and research funding will help promote Taiwanese perspectives on democracy, technology and innovation.
Cultural and religious diplomacy is also essential. Taiwan can engage with Indonesia’s Muslim organizations through interfaith dialogues and educational initiatives, reinforcing shared values.
Additionally, Taiwan must engage the Indonesian public directly through social media, cultural festivals and people-to-people exchanges. Notably, student exchanges between Indonesia and Taiwan have been strong and should be further reinforced to build long-term mutual understanding.
As the US retreats from its traditional role in shaping public discourse in Indonesia, Taiwan faces an urgent need to amplify its own voice in Indonesia. Without strategic soft-power initiatives, Taiwanese narratives risk being overshadowed by Beijing’s expanding influence.
By proactively investing in media, education, economic ties and cultural diplomacy, Taiwan can carve out a stronger presence in Indonesia, ensuring that its story is not lost in the rising tide of Chinese soft power.
Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is director of the China-
Indonesia Desk at the Center of Economic and Law Studies in Jakarta.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS