乱七八糟 - Luàn qī bā zāo

chaotic seven, eight bad - While Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodja worth a visit from China, Indonesia fell on "the bully" trap.

The topic I want to discuss is the recent developments in Indonesia, specifically regarding the current government's approach to the trade war involving the U.S., ASEAN countries, and China. This isn't about the uncertain economic condition in Indonesia—something we're all aware of—but rather about the chaotic behavior of our leadership in responding to what I term "bullying" from the trade war.

Last week, China visited three ASEAN countries—Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia—within the span of a week, shortly after the U.S. imposed reciprocal tariffs on every trade partner they perceive to have a trade deficit. It’s worth noting that Indonesia is also an ASEAN country that has a trade surplus with the U.S. Observers may wonder why Indonesia was not included in this visit, especially given the strong relations we have with China. However, I won’t speculate on that, as only President Xi and Wang Yi, the Director of the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee for Foreign Affairs, really have the answers.

In this writing, I aim to express my opinion on how chaotic the current administration seems to be in dealing with the U.S. There hasn’t been a U.S. ambassador for quite some time, and the administration's reactive statements appear to cater to U.S. demands. My purpose here is to highlight how the current government seems to lack common sense in dealing with this global tariff war. Here are a few points that illustrate why I believe the administration is too reactive and doesn’t fully grasp the "ill intentions" behind the U.S. tariff discussions:

1) Indonesia has more leverage than the current administration appears to realize. Why did we rush to engage with the U.S. without adequate analysis? If we look at the export numbers, the U.S. accounts for a relatively small market share compared to China and other ASEAN countries, except for a few specific product categories, such as shoes and textiles. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense that our government quickly acquiesced to U.S. demands within two weeks of their announcement. A plausible explanation might be the administration's tendency to blame turmoil in the Indonesian financial market on the trade war, despite claiming that Indonesia’s exposure to it isn't significant. So, why rush to the U.S.? Instead, we should consolidate our position with other ASEAN countries and even engage with China first, as those countries have a larger stake in Indonesia.

2) The U.S. is asking Indonesia to increase imports from them, but what U.S. products are actually available in Indonesia? I rarely see U.S. manufactured products here; most U.S. brands have their products made in China. If we increase imports from the U.S., how costly will that be when we know that China will likely not engage with the U.S. in the near term?

4) There are rumors that Indonesia might purchase defense equipment from the U.S. amid its current account deficit. In my view, this is not sensible; why should we allocate a large portion of our budget to defense when we have no intention of expanding our military capabilities? Where will the funding come from? If Indonesia goes through with this, it could potentially harm our relationship with China, our biggest trading partner.

5) Indonesia is one of the biggest supporters of Palestine and has been rumored to be asked to help with Gaza refugees (although this has not yet been decided). As a supporter of the Palestinian people, why should we be responsible for the refugees when the U.S. has supported Israel in displacing Palestinians from Gaza? This would be contradictory to our position and doesn’t seem logical. Even China is more supportive to Palestine compare to Indonesia

6) The current administration's approach appears chaotic and overly reactive. We are too focused on external issues while many domestic problems remain unresolved. The numbers will reveal whether we have fallen into the U.S. trap this time around.

Using proverbs from ancient Chinese literature, this relatively common saying describes something that is disorganized and messy. At first glance, the literal translation of “chaotic seven, eight bad” seems nonsensical. However, it is based on two historical events. The “chaotic seven” refers to a tumultuous period in Chinese history when seven kingdoms revolted against the Han Dynasty in 154 BC. The “eight bad” pertains to a rebellion that occurred five hundred years later, during which eight would-be kings vied for the vacant emperor's throne in an event known as the Eight Kings Rebellion.