Manila Should Learn from Jakarta’s Approach to Engaging China

Among ASEAN member states, the Philippines and Indonesia are frequently discussed in tandem. Both are archipelagos with large, diverse populations, experiences of Western colonial rule and political institutions influenced by authoritarian periods. More recently, Indonesian politics has even been described as in a stage of ‘Philippinisation’. Yet while the two countries face similar structural challenges, when it comes to managing relations with China, their approaches could not be more different.

Jakarta’s approach to China is defined by a level of active calculation that Manila is still arguably finding its footing in. This playbook involves a rigorous economic pragmatism. Jakarta remains open to Chinese investment and technical cooperation, while keeping a cautious eye on more sensitive strategic sectors. Jakarta also weaves strategic thinkinginto its maritime policy. Though Jakarta does not have agreed national guidelines on maritime strategy, there are three historical reference points it consistently relies on — the Palapa oath, the Indonesian National Revolution and the Djuanda Declaration.

Indonesia’s response to China is not perfect. The Prabowo Subianto administration has been criticised for prioritising style over substance in its foreign policy. A glaring example was his November 2024 trip to Beijing, his first overseas visit after his inauguration, during which a joint statement on areas of overlapping maritime claims essentially handed China a symbolic victory it had not earned. By leaving out any mention of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Indonesia became the first ASEAN country to implicitly recognise Beijing’s nine-dash line.

Still, Indonesia’s broader China policy reflects a long-standing agenda that strategically combines firmness on sovereignty with selective engagement where national interests are at stake. Despite tensions in areas such as Natuna, Jakarta has avoided allowing disputes to define their entire relationship. While there have been changes to Indonesia’s approach over the past few years, such as the adoption of strategic transactionalism — an approach that replaces passive neutrality with active calculation — Jakarta remains anchored in pragmatism.

By contrast, the Philippines’ foreign policy has often depended heavily on the preferences of the incumbent president and oscillates between confrontation and accommodation. National interest has too often reflected the priorities of political families that have long ruled the country.

Source : Manila should take a page from Jakarta’s China playbook