Despite Indonesia being a young-age nation, it can only come up with old people to occupy positions representing the country’s most vital interests. Among the 12 newly nominated ambassadors, three of the most strategically important posts, Washington, Tokyo, and Singapore, are entrusted to Indroyono Soesilo, Kartini Sjahrir, and Hotmangaradja Panjaitan, all aged above 70. Their appointments are not only reflective of political convenience, but they also raise serious questions about Indonesia’s commitment to forward-looking, innovative diplomacy.
This reality starkly contrasts with Indonesia’s own demographic structure. As of 2024, more than 52% of Indonesians are under the age of 30, and over 65% are of productive age (15–64 years), a demographic composition often touted by the government as a national asset. Yet when it comes to actual leadership roles in diplomacy, it is the past, not the future, that is repeatedly favored.
Dwisuryo Indroyono Soesilo, a former coordinating minister, has been appointed ambassador to the United States at a time when Indonesia faces unprecedented challenges in its relationship with Washington. The US has imposed punitive trade tariffs and given Indonesia the cold shoulder during recent high-level negotiations. Indroyono is widely regarded as one of Indonesia’s more intelligent and respected officials, and this is not a critique of his intellect. However, what is urgently needed now is an envoy who understands the shifting dynamics of US politics, someone with diplomatic agility and bold, innovative ideas to navigate the protectionist tide.
Beyond trade, the ambassador must also be a strong advocate for Indonesian citizens living in the US, particularly Muslim students at American universities who increasingly face discrimination and isolation. Appointing a retired technocrat nearing the twilight of his career sends the wrong signal: that Indonesia is content with symbolic representation, rather than deploying a strategist capable of advancing its interests on a demanding global stage.
Meanwhile in Singapore, the decision to appoint retired general Hotmangaradja Panjaitan to head the mission is a mismatch. Singapore is not only Indonesia’s closest neighbor but also its top investor, a global financial hub, and a regional innovation leader. The role demands a nuanced grasp of international finance, startup ecosystems, education networks, and long-term economic diplomacy. Placing a military figure there signals a mismatch between Indonesia’s real needs and the government’s outdated approach to foreign representation. For decades, Indonesia has failed to capitalize on Singapore’s full potential—its investment ecosystem, cutting-edge technology, and education infrastructure. That failure is likely to continue with another poorly matched envoy.
Nurmala Kartini Sjahrir, sister of Luhut B. Pandjaitan, is appointed to Tokyo, a post that calls for acute knowledge of technological and industrial trends. Yet her return to diplomacy after a decade of absence feels more like symbolic reappearance than strategic necessity. As Japan faces regional recalibration and seeks stronger Southeast Asian alliances, Indonesia cannot afford a passive or ceremonial presence in Tokyo. This role should have gone to someone who can push new trade, climate, and digital agendas, not someone whose name only carries political recognition. The fact that her brother, Luhut, and her son, Pandu Patria Sjahrir, both occupy strategic positions has already raised eyebrows and added further complexity to the matter.
The broader issue here is not merely age or family ties. It is about the systematic sidelining of Indonesia’s career diplomats, professionals trained in international law, multilateral negotiations, and statecraft. These diplomats, having climbed through decades of service, are often relegated to secondary postings while top seats are given to political appointees with tenuous connections to the host countries or outdated bureaucratic mentalities.
Even more troubling is how these appointments expose the hypocrisy in the government’s rhetoric about youth and demographic opportunity. During the 2024 election cycle, the state changed the constitutional rules, through a controversial Constitutional Court decision, to allow Gibran Rakabuming Raka, the son of then-president Joko Widodo, to run as Prabowo Subianto’s vice presidential candidate despite being under the legal age requirement. The justification for this move was cloaked in populist language about empowering youth and embracing the demographic bonus.
Yet now, when it comes to real leadership roles, ambassadorships that shape Indonesia’s place in the world, the very same government turns away from young, capable, and internationally literate professionals in favor of political allies from the past. If this country is serious about the future, why are we not empowering those who will live it?
What emerges from this round of appointments is a worrying pattern: Indonesia does not appear interested in breakthrough diplomacy. Instead, it opts for preservation of the status quo. The appointments reflect more about loyalty and seniority than readiness to tackle today’s complex geopolitical landscape. That means there will be no bold initiative, no disruptive thinking, no regional strategy recalibration. It is a diplomacy of presence, not performance.
Is this pattern a symptom of a talent deficit in Indonesia? Or does it reflect a deeper distrust by President Prabowo Subianto toward the diplomatic corps, professionals who, unlike politicians, do not operate in patronage networks? If the latter is true, then Indonesia’s foreign policy risks becoming more inward-looking and transactional, shaped not by long-term strategy but by short-term political expediency.
At a time when Indonesia claims to be a rising power, these appointments suggest a lack of seriousness in elevating its diplomatic architecture. The world is shifting. ASEAN is recalibrating, China and the US are decoupling, and Indonesia must assert leadership with clarity and boldness. That cannot be done by merely recycling names from decades past. It demands trust in merit, investment in the future, and the courage to let competence, not political loyalty, guide foreign representation.
For far too long, Indonesia has underestimated the role of ambassadors in advancing its grand strategy and safeguarding national interests. This neglect is evident in the large number of vacant—and soon to be vacant—ambassadorial posts. The government routinely delays these appointments, treating them as secondary to domestic political maneuvering. Appointing commissioners to state-owned enterprises for political supporters is often seen as more urgent.
But as global competition intensifies and foreign relations become increasingly strategic, ambassadors can no longer afford to merely play golf or attend cocktail parties. They must deliver concrete political and economic outcomes. This era demands not retired bureaucrats, but young, innovative diplomats with fresh ideas, strong networks, and the courage to represent Indonesia with ambition and clarity on the world stage.
