Indonesia Warns US Overflight Deal Threatens Sovereignty
Get the Geopolitics newsletter
Daily geopolitics — wars, elections, sanctions, the diplomatic moves that move markets. Free.
- Indonesia's foreign ministry warned internally that a proposed US military overflight agreement — granting broad access to Indonesian airspace for contingency operations and transit — could entangle the country in South China Sea conflicts and make it a potential target.
- The ministry's concerns include enabling surveillance from Indonesian territory and creating the perception of alignment with Washington, concerns the authors note are grounded in past US military surveillance activities Indonesia itself has protested.
- China's sweeping South China Sea claims overlap with Indonesia's Natuna Islands exclusive economic zone, yet Jakarta deepened ties with Beijing through a November 2024 joint statement that raised sovereignty questions.
- The authors, Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat and Yeta Purnama of CELIOS, argue the two moves — accommodation of Beijing and exploration of expanded US military access — reflect "strategic drift" rather than a sophisticated balancing act.
- Officials say the US overflight agreement remains under review, but the authors contend it has already exposed the absence of a consistent strategic doctrine governing Indonesia's external engagements and eroding its credibility with both Washington and Beijing.
- Indonesia's "free and active" doctrine was designed to preserve independence from entangling alliances, the authors write, not to justify saying yes to multiple competing powers in ways that erode the sovereignty it claims to protect.
Why it matters: Indonesia's foreign ministry challenge exposes a core contradiction in its 'free and active' doctrine: entertaining broad US military access while deepening ties with China — whose South China Sea claims overlap Indonesia's Natuna Islands EEZ — risks turning Jakarta from an independent actor into a venue for great-power competition. The credibility cost is immediate: neither Washington nor Beijing will fully trust a neutral that appears willing to accommodate both.
