Indonesia’s Sovereignty at Risk: The Consequences of the ART Agreement with the United States

Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

More than sixty years ago, Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, warned that political independence meant little without economic sovereignty. In his famous Trisakti doctrine, announced during the 1964 Independence Day speech, Sukarno argued that a truly independent nation must achieve three things: political sovereignty, economic self-reliance, and cultural dignity. He believed that former colonial powers would continue to dominate newly independent countries through economic dependency and political pressure, even after formal colonialism had ended.

Today, many Indonesian scholars and activists believe those warnings are becoming reality once again through the newly signed Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) between Indonesia and the United States. Negotiated throughout 2025 and finalized in Washington, D.C. in February 2026, the agreement is scheduled to take effect in May 2026. Supporters present ART as a modern trade agreement designed to reduce tariffs and improve economic cooperation. Critics, however, argue that it represents a deeper restructuring of Indonesia’s political and economic sovereignty in favor of U.S. strategic interests.

At the center of the debate is a simple question: does ART create an equal partnership, or does it reinforce an unequal relationship in which Indonesia is expected to adapt to the priorities of a more powerful state?

An Unequal Partnership

On paper, ART covers familiar elements of contemporary trade agreements: tariffs, digital trade, export rules, investment regulations, security coordination, and implementation mechanisms. Yet the deeper concern raised by critics is that the agreement is not genuinely reciprocal. Instead, it establishes a framework in which Indonesia must align many of its economic and geopolitical policies with those of Washington, while the United States assumes few comparable obligations.

One of the most controversial provisions reportedly requires Indonesia to coordinate aspects of its foreign policy and trade practices with U.S. sanctions regimes and export-control systems. Indonesia would also be expected to consult Washington before entering certain trade arrangements with third countries if those agreements could affect U.S. interests. Critics argue that such clauses effectively extend American strategic influence into Indonesian policymaking.

For many observers in the Global South, this reflects a familiar historical pattern. Powerful countries often use trade agreements not only to........

© CounterPunch