Search

This paper discusses Indonesia's hedging policies towards China, especially in the South China Sea issue. In line with a free and active foreign policy principle, Indonesia seeks a middle way by establishing cooperation with the United States and China, two major powers with different interests in the South China Sea issue. This research is qualitative research using a case study approach. In this study, I carried out two data collection techniques, namely interviews and literature studies. The political elite decides to hedge within a government, so it is motivated more internally than externally. Hedging is a tactic that demands a low commitment to a country that does not represent friend or foe. However, in line with the increasing competition between the two, Indonesia's hedging strategy may fail due to external pressure to join one side. Therefore, in maximizing the hedging strategy, Indonesia seems to need to increase its defense capabilities to increase its bargaining position and deter threats from external parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indonesia, like many other countries, has encountered a slew of social, political, economic, and public health challenges in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to these challenges, the Indonesian government implemented security measures by instituting large-scale social restrictions (Indonesian: Pembatasan Sosial Berskala Besar) and, later, micro-scale social restrictions (Pemberlakukan Pembatasan Kegiatan Masyarakat) to restrict people’s mobility and virus transmission. Using securitisation theory as a framework, this article examines how the nationwide dilemma between public health and economic security arose. Based on official documents, government papers, and political speeches, this study reveals how the country’s COVID-19 responses were largely defined by carefully constructed and flexible measures known as the ‘gas and brake’ policy (Kebijakan Gas dan Rem), which were aimed at resolving the health-economic dilemma. This policy is deemed appropriate given the country’s limited public health and economic resources, despite the fact that many argue that such an approach reflects indecisiveness and a lack of coordination among the country’s authorities. This article also demonstrates that policymakers in Indonesia use this policy to resolve the securitisation dilemma by reinforcing the hierarchical ordering of security sectors as a readjustment strategy. The policy is used to justify tightening or easing social restrictions by changing the security narrative throughout the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]