
Indonesia’s decision to join BRICS is no strategic pivot but a continuation of its multi-alignment foreign policy. However, Indonesia will need to navigate internal BRICS dynamics while maintaining ties with the West and its leadership role in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Although framed domestically as a step forwards in strengthening economic growth through South-South cooperation, the move is leverage in its dealings with the West and preserves Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto’s approach of ‘friends to all, enemy to none’. Having long participated in BRICS summits as an observer, Indonesia’s formal admission in early 2025 aligns with its commitment to equilibrium through multi-alignment, shown through a parallel application to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
As the first Southeast Asian nation to join BRICS, Indonesia’s membership reinforces the group’s claim of representing the Global South. The move has been welcomed by both the current BRICS chair, Brazil, and China in statements promoting Indonesia’s potential contributions to reforming global governance and fostering South-South cooperation. Yet, the narrative of BRICS as a champion of South-South cooperation is debatable, as members such as China and Russia are hardly considered as Global South countries.
Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs justified joining BRICS as being grounded in principles of equality, mutual respect and sustainable development, but it also thanked Russia as the 2024 BRICS chair for its support during the membership process. This highlights the geopolitical undertones of Jakarta’s decision, given Russia’s strained relations with the West. Additionally, BRICS has positioned itself as a counterweight to Western dominance, also including China and Iran as members.
While Indonesia insists it remains non-aligned, BRICS membership could complicate its relationships with the United States and EU. If tensions between BRICS and the West intensify, Indonesia will need to manage its role carefully to avoid undermining its broader foreign policy objectives.
For example, BRICS’s ambition to create a new currency for trading among members may undermine the US dollar’s dominance of international trade and subsequently irritate Washington, as BRICS members make up 40 percent of the global economy. Still, de-dollarisation remains more of an aspiration than policy for now, as members still heavily depend on the dollar for trade. Moreover, the return of US President Donald Trump, who has threatened a 100 percent tariff on BRICS members over such initiatives, makes the realisation of the grouping’s currency unrealistic.
Despite tensions, joining BRICS aligns with Indonesia’s interest to engage with non-traditional markets. Economic opportunities within BRICS are significant but not without caveats. Collaborations could facilitate investments in infrastructure, technology and public health, supporting Prabowo’s domestic agenda. Partnerships with Brazil and Russia could enhance food and energy security, while China and India may provide technological expertise.
However, such initiatives as the BRICS Technology Transfer Center Network, which was proposed by China in 2018, raise concerns about intellectual property protection and equitable benefit-sharing. It is unclear to what extent the arrangements would protect Indonesia’s intellectual property and that of other countries. Jakarta must ensure these arrangements safeguard its interests to maximise the benefits of membership.
Beyond tension with the West, BRICS also faces internal challenges. Different and sometimes contradicting national interests, such as those between China and India, often undermine the bloc’s cohesion and collective action. This may challenge Indonesia’s ability to influence the group’s agenda without being carried away by the power contest within.
While Indonesia’s middle-power status has made it an effective de-facto leader within ASEAN, BRICS presents a more complex dynamic, requiring skilled diplomacy to promote inclusivity while avoiding alienating the West.
Indonesia’s history of independence and non-alignment offers some advantages in navigating global tension. Jakarta’s pursuit of membership in both BRICS and the OECD shows its multi-alignment strategy, engaging with multiple platforms, regardless of their political circumstances. This flexibility may allow Indonesia to benefit from BRICS while maintaining strong ties with its traditional partners.
Nevertheless, Indonesia’s engagement with BRICS could raise concerns about its leadership role in ASEAN as it risks stretching its resources too thin. As Southeast Asia’s largest economy, Indonesia has traditionally driven ASEAN-led initiatives. While BRICS membership may enhance Jakarta’s global leverage, it risks diverting resources from regional commitments. Indonesia must ensure its participation complements, rather than undermines, ASEAN’s collective interests.
Ultimately, Indonesia’s success within BRICS depends on its ability to meaningfully contribute while safeguarding its national interests. Beyond being a symbolic addition, Indonesia must leverage its position as a regional leader to advocate practical and actionable goals. This includes promoting inclusivity within BRICS, shaping its agenda toward global economic equitability and ensuring it complements ASEAN commitments. With strategic vision and skilled diplomacy, Indonesia can use BRICS to advance its interests while contributing to a more balanced global order.