Who Counts As 'Foreign' In Indonesia's Deepening China Ties?

Latest stories India watches warily as Bangladesh eyes Mecca defense pact Asia's AI boom papering over underlying rust-belt economies Bear trap: Russia is running out of good options in Ukraine

President Prabowo Subianto has repeatedly used the term“antek asing,” generally understood as a foreign agent, foreign puppet or someone serving foreign interests. Amnesty International reported in 2026 that Indonesian activists, journalists and civil society groups had been targeted by campaigns accusing them of being foreign agents.

Here, the meaning of“foreign” becomes politically important. A government has every right to investigate genuine foreign interference. Foreign governments can attempt to influence politics in other countries, and Indonesia has a legitimate interest in protecting its sovereignty.

But foreign influence, foreign interference and foreign control are not automatically the same thing. An Indonesian journalist can speak to foreign media without being a foreign agent.

An activist can work with an international organization without taking orders from another government. A student protest can receive international attention without being controlled from abroad.

This is why the phrase“antek asing” deserves scrutiny. The question should not be whether foreign influence is possible. It should be whether there is evidence that a particular Indonesian is actually acting on behalf of a foreign power.

Otherwise, the word can change the political debate. Instead of asking whether a critic's argument is correct, people are encouraged to ask whose interests the critic serves. The focus moves from the substance of criticism to the loyalty of the person making it.

China provides an important comparison, although Indonesia and China have very different political systems. China is a one-party state ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, and its government regularly uses the language of foreign interference and“foreign forces” when discussing threats to national security, sovereignty and political stability.

Indonesia remains an electoral democracy, with competing political parties, elections, a critical press and civil society organizations. There is no basis for saying that Indonesia and China are creating a joint authoritarian system simply because they are expanding defense cooperation.

The more interesting question is about political language. In China,“foreign forces” can refer to governments or organizations that Beijing considers a threat. In Indonesia,“asing” can also be used against Indonesian citizens who are accused of serving foreign interests.

The contexts are different, but the political question is similar: who gets to define who is foreign?

That question is particularly important because Indonesia has its own history. During Suharto's New Order, political opponents were sometimes accused of serving foreign interests or helping outside powers destabilize Indonesia. Such accusations could make political opposition appear to be a security threat rather than a normal part of political life.

Prabowo's use of“antek asing” does not prove that Indonesia is returning to the New Order. Nor does cooperation with China prove that Jakarta is adopting Beijing's political system. But the combination should make Indonesians more careful about how the word“foreign” is used.