analysis
As Indonesia tightens spending, Prabowo’s travel-heavy diplomacy comes under scrutiny
Critics question whether Indonesia President Prabowo Subianto’s overseas trips are producing measurable economic and political returns at a time when the administration is championing spending cuts and budget efficiency at home.
Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto and France’s President Emmanuel Macron during a joint press statement at The Elysee Presidential Palace in Paris, France on May 28, 2026. (Photo: Facebook/Prabowo Subianto)
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE/JAKARTA: Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto’s latest and fourth trip to France in late May has reignited public scrutiny over his travels, particularly over repeated visits to the same country within less than two years since taking office.
For instance, Malaysia has been his most frequently visited destination with five trips, followed by France and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with four each. The United States, Britain, Egypt and Russia have each hosted him three times.
Debate has also resurfaced over one of the defining features of his presidency so far: an intensive overseas diplomacy campaign at a time when his administration is championing budget efficiency at home.
The Presidential Secretariat quoted by local media reports said Prabowo and his delegation stayed at the Four Seasons Hotel George V, a luxury hotel near the Eiffel Tower.
Indonesian media outlet Tempo reported that the palace booked 27 rooms for three nights, including a presidential suite and a grand premier suite, at an estimated cost of EUR281,640 (US$327,000).
For Bhima Yudhistira, executive director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), the figures underscored a broader concern about the value of the president’s overseas engagements.
“Prabowo’s trip was unnecessary. It’s far too extravagant. Just look at the hotel bill alone, 5.7 billion rupiah (US$316,000) for the delegation, while the results remain questionable,” he said in an interview with CNA.
Guess Word
Crack the word, one row at a time
Buzzword
Create words using the given letters
Mini Sudoku
Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser
Mini Crossword
Small grid, big challenge
Word Search
Spot as many words as you can
Former Indonesian ambassador to the United States, Dino Patti Djalal, is among those who have openly questioned Prabowo’s jetsetting diplomacy.
According to Dino, Prabowo has spent roughly one out of every six days abroad since taking office. The issue, he argued, is not simply the frequency of travel but whether Indonesia is relying too heavily on a diplomacy model centred on face-to-face engagement.
The criticism by Dino drew a swift response from Cabinet Secretary Teddy Indra Wijaya, who argued that direct diplomacy remains essential in an increasingly uncertain world.
“We need to cultivate good relationships,” Teddy said in an Instagram video posted by the Cabinet Secretariat.
Building trust between leaders before a crisis emerges is not a luxury, he argued, but a strategic necessity, adding that relationships developed today may prove crucial when countries need support, cooperation or assistance in the future.
At issue is whether Prabowo’s travel-heavy diplomacy represents a strategic investment in Indonesia’s future or an expensive foreign policy approach, with benefits that are difficult to measure, say experts.
Some analysts argue the trips should be viewed as a long-term diplomatic investment rather than judged solely on their immediate costs.
WHY IS PRABOWO TRAVELLING SO MUCH?
The travel scrutiny comes as Prabowo pursues an ambitious efficiency drive at home.
The president has said government spending cuts have generated savings exceeding 300 trillion rupiah, which are being redirected towards flagship programmes such as free nutritious meals, school renovations and infrastructure projects. He has repeatedly criticised what he considers wasteful spending by state institutions.
“Reduce seminars, especially official trips. Comparative studies? What else is left to study?” Prabowo said during a November 2024 political event.
Yet his own international schedule has remained busy.
Less than a month after taking office, Prabowo embarked on a 16-day diplomatic tour covering China, the United States, Peru, Brazil, Britain and the UAE.
Since then, he has attended a steady stream of international summits, bilateral meetings and state events spanning Southeast Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and Latin America.
Publicly available travel records show that Prabowo has undertaken 54 overseas trips covering 29 countries since taking office.
In comparison, his predecessor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo made 16 state visits while former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono made 10 overseas trips in their first full years in office.
Former ambassador Dino believes virtual diplomacy should play a larger role, particularly for meetings that do not require direct presidential participation.
Indonesia could also make greater use of bilateral engagements on the sidelines of major international gatherings and allow the foreign ministry to handle more tactical diplomatic missions, he said.
“With a video call that costs virtually nothing, the state could save hundreds of billions of rupiah in overseas travel expenses while achieving broadly similar substantive outcomes,” Dino added.
He also called for greater transparency around presidential travel, arguing that some overseas visits have been undertaken without sufficient public explanation.
“There needs to be greater accountability and transparency because the public often does not know where the president is overseas,” he said.
The government has disputed much of that criticism.
Cabinet Secretary Teddy said the size of presidential delegations has been significantly reduced compared with previous administrations. While overseas trips in the past could involve more than 120 people, Prabowo’s delegations now typically consist of around 50 to 60 members.
“The size of President Prabowo’s delegation has been cut by more than half compared with previous administrations,” he emphasised.
He also rejected suggestions that the president’s foreign engagements were largely ceremonial.
“It is completely wrong to say these trips are simply about appearances,” said Teddy.
“We cannot wait until a crisis emerges before asking for help. We need to build strong relationships first.
“If an emergency arises in the future, we can seek assistance, and the same applies in reverse. That requires personal relationships and emotional closeness between leaders. That is diplomacy.”
He added that any travel expenses exceeding the budget allocated by the state were paid personally by Prabowo.
He also linked the president’s overseas diplomacy to a series of positive outcomes, including Indonesia’s accession to BRICS, trade negotiations with the European Union, investment commitments, defence cooperation, Hajj arrangements, support for Palestine and assistance for Indonesians overseas.
Citing data from the investment ministry, Teddy revealed Indonesia had attracted around 2.43 quadrillion rupiah in investment over the past 18 months.
“Last month President Prabowo visited Japan and South Korea. Upon returning, there was immediately around 575 trillion rupiah in investment,” he added.
DIPLOMATIC DIRECTION AND PRIORITIES UNDER PRABOWO
Beyond debates over the cost and frequency of his trips, Prabowo’s pattern of overseas visits has also raised questions about the direction and priorities of Indonesia’s diplomacy, say experts.
The debate has emerged as several countries have repeatedly appeared on the president’s foreign travel agenda.
According to analysts, the pattern reflects specific diplomatic priorities that have become a focus of the Prabowo administration.
Prabowo’s extensive travel, Akbar Kurnia Putra, an international law expert at Jambi University argued, reflects a deliberate diplomatic strategy built around personal engagement and Indonesia’s desire to maintain relationships with multiple centres of power simultaneously.
Public concerns about the contrast between domestic spending cuts and overseas travel are understandable, Akbar said, particularly when budget reductions affect sectors such as education, healthcare and infrastructure.
But judging the trips solely through the lens of cost risks overlooking their broader strategic purpose.
According to Akbar, Prabowo appears to be pursuing what he describes as a “free and active plus” foreign policy.
The approach builds on Indonesia’s longstanding non-aligned tradition while placing greater emphasis on direct engagement between national leaders.
In an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment, Akbar said, the physical presence of a head of state carries political significance that cannot easily be replicated through virtual meetings or lower-level diplomatic channels.
“Physical presence is the highest signal of commitment and cannot be delegated,” he told CNA.
“Only a head of state can negotiate on equal terms and make binding political commitments.”
Prabowo’s background as a former defence minister may also help explain the emphasis on leader-to-leader diplomacy.
Major defence procurements, technology transfers and security partnerships often depend on relationships cultivated directly between national leaders, Akbar said.
Viewed through that lens, repeated visits to countries such as France, Russia and the UAE are not random. They reflect Indonesia’s attempt to preserve strategic flexibility while avoiding dependence on any single geopolitical bloc.
“Indonesia does not want to choose sides,” he said.
The strategy allows Jakarta to pursue multiple objectives at once: technology and defence cooperation from Europe, investment from Gulf states, and partnerships in energy and food security from Eurasian partners.
For Akbar, it represents an ambitious attempt to position Indonesia as “an autonomous and influential middle power amid intensifying geopolitical rivalry”.
A similar argument is made by Teuku Rezasyah, an international relations lecturer at President University.
Rezasyah said the authority and legitimacy carried by a head of state, stressing that overseas visits are justified when they advance national interests, generate measurable benefits and produce outcomes that can be followed up by ministries, businesses and other stakeholders.
“The Indonesian president is the country’s commander of diplomacy and national defence,” Rezasyah told CNA.
Because of that authority, decisions reached directly by national leaders often carry greater political weight and can shape bilateral relationships for years to come, he argued.
Rezasyah also linked Prabowo’s repeated visits to France, the UAE and Russia to broader shifts in the international order.
As global influence becomes more dispersed, countries that were once considered secondary players are becoming increasingly important diplomatic and economic partners.
“That is why partnerships with them need to be developed continuously,” he said.
But for Radityo Dharmaputra, an international relations lecturer at Airlangga University, Prabowo’s travel record raises as many questions as it answers.
“So far, the pattern appears to be one of high visibility among major powers, but without a clearly defined set of priorities,” he told CNA.
According to Radityo, it remains difficult to identify a consistent strategic logic behind the president’s choice of destinations.
If Indonesia’s goal is to balance relations among major powers, China would be expected to feature more prominently, he said. If the focus is on BRICS or the Global South, then Prabowo’s repeated visits to wealthy Gulf states and Global North countries become harder to explain.
The relative lack of engagement with Africa, apart from specific events such as the D-8 summit in Egypt, further complicates the picture.
“Why France? Why the UAE? Why Russia?” Radityo asked. “Why not China and the United States? Why not the European Union headquarters in Brussels?”
Repeated visits alone do not necessarily signal strategic priorities, he said.
Some trips to France and Britain, he noted, were not directly tied to defence cooperation or major economic initiatives.
“Some were simply national parades or meetings with monarchs,” he said.
Radityo also drew comparisons with former president Abdurrahman Wahid, better known as Gus Dur, who was famous for his own active diplomacy abroad.
The comparison, however, highlights important differences, he said.
When Gus Dur took office, Indonesia was emerging from a period of political upheaval and needed to restore international confidence following the fall of the New Order.
“Gus Dur needed to prove that Indonesia was still here and persuade international partners to return,” Radityo said. “What exactly does Prabowo need to prove?”
HOW CAN THE SUCCESS OF PRABOWO’S DIPLOMACY BE MEASURED?
Some experts said that diplomacy should be assessed over the long term, while critics want evidence that the substantial resources devoted to overseas engagement were producing tangible results.
Rezasyah said diplomacy should not be judged solely by the number of trips undertaken or the headlines they generate.
Instead, he pointed to more concrete indicators such as agreements, joint communiques and follow-up actions that can be evaluated over time.
“The foreign minister needs to explain the results of every visit in a detailed and measurable way,” he said.
He added that the use of public funds and the division of responsibilities among government institutions should also be communicated clearly to the public.
For Bhima from CELIOS, economic performance remains one of the most important benchmarks.
If the government wants to justify an unusually active diplomacy strategy, he said, it must be able to demonstrate clear economic returns.
So far, he said, the connection between Prabowo’s overseas travel and measurable economic benefits remains difficult to identify.
“If you look at the numbers, what is rising is imports, while export growth continues to slow,” Bhima revealed.
Data from the Indonesian Statistics Agency and Central Bank show imports of goods and services grew by 6.51 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2025 before accelerating to 7.18 per cent in the first quarter of 2026.
However, export growth slowed from 9.91 per cent in the third quarter of 2025 to 3.25 per cent in the fourth quarter before falling further to just 0.9 per cent in the first quarter of 2026.
Bhima argued that many of the agreements announced during overseas visits remain at the memorandum of understanding (MOU) stage, adding that signed contracts, realised investments and measurable economic outcomes mattered far more than announcements alone, and that there was an “enormous gap” between the two.
He also added that while France occupies an important position in Indonesia’s defence strategy, particularly through the Rafale fighter jet programme, it is not among Indonesia’s largest trading partners in Europe.
“What is being brought home is not a direct benefit to Indonesia’s economy,” he said.
Sharing similar concerns, Radityo acknowledged that while symbolism and geopolitical positioning were legitimate components of diplomacy, the public would ultimately judge foreign policy through practical outcomes.
“The most important measure is the economic benefit … So far, what we have seen are promises upon promises, MoUs upon MoUs,” he said.
However, Akbar from Jambi university cautioned against treating diplomacy like a short-term investment that must deliver immediate returns.
Defence cooperation, energy partnerships and food security initiatives often begin with political commitments before evolving into contracts, investments or operational projects, he said, and for that reason, the cost of diplomacy should be weighed against the potential long-term value of the relationships being built today.
“If, within two to three years, defence, food and energy MoUs have not turned into contracts or projects, then the cost of these trips cannot be justified,” he said.
But if those agreements eventually produce tangible results, the calculation changes dramatically, he added.
“If visits to Russia result in competitively priced crude oil supplies that reduce Indonesia’s subsidy burden, or if defence cooperation with France leads to a more self-reliant defence industry, then the cost of these trips would be a very cheap investment compared to the returns.”
Source: CNA/ew/da(ao)
Sign up for our newsletters
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
About The Author
