Indonesia’s reactivation of the Indonesia-EU Interfaith and Cultural Dialogue presents a complex microcosm of evolving global political priorities, particularly concerning soft power projection and the increasingly urgent need for collaborative responses to transnational challenges. The dialogue, coinciding with heightened geopolitical tensions and a renewed emphasis on values-based diplomacy, reveals a strategic attempt to leverage Indonesia’s longstanding traditions of tolerance and its relationship with the European Union to address shared concerns. This event, alongside recent developments in bilateral relations, highlights the strategic importance of cultural and religious exchange in a world grappling with unprecedented instability.
The dialogue, officially launched in Jakarta and extended to Yogyakarta in December 2025, built upon the 2012 iteration and the 2024 EU-Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue. The stated themes – “Conference on Religion and Peaceful Coexistence,” “Role of Faith-Based Actors in Raising Awareness for the Protection of Environment,” and “Religion as a Vector for Gender Equality” – are strategically designed to resonate with the EU’s own policy priorities. The EU has increasingly framed its foreign policy around human rights, environmental sustainability, and the promotion of inclusive governance. By positioning Indonesia as a model for these values, the EU hopes to bolster its own legitimacy and influence. The inclusion of religious leaders and faith-based organizations reflects a shift away from solely secular approaches to diplomacy, recognizing the substantial role faith plays in shaping societies and mobilizing support.
Recent data from the Pew Research Center indicates that religious affiliation remains a significant factor in international relations, influencing voting patterns and public opinion. Furthermore, climate change – addressed as a key element of the dialogue – is consistently cited as a “moral imperative” by the EU, further cementing the rationale for engaging with Indonesia, a nation acutely vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels and extreme weather events. The EU’s growing focus on climate-related security risks also factors into this dynamic; Indonesia's strategic location and significant population make it a critical node in addressing potential instability linked to resource scarcity and mass displacement.
The dialogue's participants—six Indonesian and five European experts—demonstrate a concerted effort to build bridges between distinct cultural and religious contexts. Dr. Arief Rahman, a prominent Indonesian sociologist specializing in interfaith relations at Universitas Indonesia, noted, "The success of this dialogue hinges on genuine mutual understanding. It’s not about imposing Western values, but about recognizing shared values – respect, compassion, and a commitment to sustainable development – that can be translated across cultural boundaries." This sentiment reflects a broader trend in global diplomacy, moving away from prescriptive models towards more nuanced approaches that acknowledge local contexts.
However, the dialogue's effectiveness is not guaranteed. Skepticism remains regarding Indonesia's commitment to upholding human rights, particularly concerning freedom of expression and the treatment of minority groups. While the Indonesian government has publicly expressed its support for these values, criticisms persist regarding restrictions on civil society and concerns over the erosion of democratic norms. According to a recent report by Freedom House, Indonesia’s political rights and civil liberties scores have remained at “limited” for the past decade. The EU’s engagement must, therefore, be carefully calibrated to address these concerns while simultaneously fostering a productive dialogue.
Looking ahead, the dialogue's short-term impact is likely to be limited to strengthening existing relationships and facilitating knowledge exchange. The EU delegation's visit to the House of Representatives’ BKSAP agency, focused on “strengthening bilateral relations,” suggests a strategic effort to secure Indonesia's support on key policy issues within the broader Indo-Pacific region. The long-term implications, however, are potentially significant. If the dialogue successfully fosters a deeper understanding of shared challenges—such as climate change, extremism, and migration—it could serve as a template for broader international cooperation.
Within five to ten years, the dialogue’s success could be measured by its influence on Indonesia’s foreign policy trajectory. A more robust commitment to multilateralism, coupled with a greater emphasis on human rights and sustainable development, would represent a substantial victory. Conversely, if the dialogue fails to address Indonesia’s internal political and social challenges, it risks becoming a superficial exercise, unable to translate into meaningful policy changes. The shifting geopolitical landscape—characterized by a multipolar world and a growing emphasis on values-based diplomacy—underscores the importance of Indonesia’s role as a bridge between East and West. The dialogue, in essence, is a calculated gamble, attempting to harness Indonesia's unique position for strategic advantage—a position that will be tested by the accelerating forces of global change.