The swirling patterns and vibrant hues of batik, Indonesia's iconic textile art, served not just as fashion but as a powerful symbol of diplomacy during a recent convergence of global powerbrokers in Jakarta. As East Asia's most prominent security and political leaders gathered for the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum, and a sequence of high-level ministerials, the ceremonial donning of batik shirts by all 17 foreign ministers conveyed more than cultural respect—it embodied a layered metaphor for the region’s complexity, its interconnectedness, and the delicate diplomacy required in an era of mounting geopolitical rivalries.
Batik, with its interplay of motifs and colors, reflects the unique identities within Indonesia and, by extension, ASEAN—a region whose diversity is both its strength and its most enduring diplomatic challenge. At the East Asia Summit, when Canada’s Foreign Minister Melanie Joly arrived in a blue batik and Australia’s Penny Wong in green, each garment bespoke their countries’ distinct presence yet evoked a common purpose: to seek dialogue amid difference.
The symbolism was not lost on the participants. President Joko Widodo, host to this colourful tableau, reiterated in his welcoming remarks that ASEAN "must not become an arena for competition, must not become a proxy for any state, and international law must be consistently respected." His words echoed the foundational vision of ASEAN as a neutral convener and consensus-builder—an imperative that has grown more urgent as external powers jostle for influence in the Indo-Pacific.
This vision, however, faces formidable obstacles. Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi summarised the regional mood succinctly: “Some say Indo-Pacific is experiencing Cold War symptoms in a hot spot.” The undercurrent of distrust and strategic uncertainty was palpable, with numerous disputes—from the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait to cross-strait economic rivalries—simmering just beneath the surface of the summit’s cordial optics.
This sartorial diplomacy also subtly realigns the optics of global power. Where suits and ties might foreground Western-centric norms, batik brings attention to Southeast Asia’s own traditions, reaffirming Indonesia’s position as a cultural and diplomatic hub. The diversity of patterns—plant motifs for China’s Wang Yi, animal motifs for Russia’s Sergey Lavrov and the United States’ Antony Blinken—underscored that each country cued its own narrative while engaging in a visually unified regional dialogue.
Observers would be wise not to overstate the unifying power of ceremonial symbolism. While batik provided a congenial, even familial, cloak to the proceedings—Wang and Jokowi’s warm handshake likened to a large family gathering—it could not mask the region’s deep-seated mistrust. Countries remain split not just along cultural lines but by issues of sovereignty, resource competition, and the ongoing pressure to choose sides or, at a minimum, hedge between Western and Chinese blocs.
President Jokowi’s insistence that ASEAN not become a proxy theater points to a growing discomfort among Southeast Asian nations about being drawn into “great power” rivalries. Several have been subject to direct economic or military pressure, raising questions as to how the group can maintain its cherished “centrality” in regional affairs. Some analysts argue that ASEAN’s norm of non-intervention and consensus, while promoting inclusiveness, limits its capacity for rapid or strong collective action on issues like the South China Sea dispute or Myanmar’s civil unrest.
This “ASEAN Plus” format brings benefits: it ensures that regional issues are not decided by external powers alone, and offers a platform for smaller states to express collective concerns. Yet the sheer diversity at the table complicates consensus. For instance, joint statements on contentious topics—such as maritime security or adherence to international law—often require painstaking wordsmithing to avoid offending any particular party or implicating one of the group’s own members.
The regional diversity, mirrored in batik’s variability, means that every country must weigh common interests—like economic growth and stability—against bilateral priorities and historic grievances. This balancing act can slow down progress on critical issues, such as developing a binding Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. While progress was made in Jakarta on some fronts, fundamental disagreements persist, and the forums routinely end with more reaffirmation of process than substantive policy change.
In practice, however, centrality has proven a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has allowed ASEAN to avoid becoming a battleground for US-China rivalry by maintaining an open, inclusive dialogue structure. On the other, its unanimity requirement often neuters collective action. When Myanmar’s military coup unravelled ASEAN’s foundational principles of democracy and peaceful dialogue, the association struggled to produce concrete consequences—a failure that critics attribute to the bloc’s reliance on consensus and reluctance to interfere in members’ internal affairs.
Nonetheless, the Jakarta summits reinforced Southeast Asia’s role as an indispensable forum for great power engagement—one where dialogue, for all its limits, is still possible even at times of maximal tension. The use of batik, with its heritage significance, added a conciliatory note to these difficult interactions, reminding all parties of both the potential and the fragility in forging a patchwork unity.
Batik diplomacy, in this context, is not just spectacle but a subtle assertion: Southeast Asia can—and must—craft its own narrative and mediate its own future, even as larger powers cast long shadows. Whether this fabric is strong enough to weather the rougher tides of 21st-century geopolitics remains to be seen, but its presence at the negotiating table introduces a uniquely regional note of optimism and agency.
As global power dynamics continue to shift, the lessons of Jakarta's summit will resonate: diplomacy is both art and negotiation, tradition and innovation. Only by weaving these strands together—amid diversity, uncertainty, and contest—can Asia craft a future that, like the best batik, is greater than the sum of its variegated parts.
Source: Kompas.id Batik Diplomacy Amid Geopolitical Tensions
The Motif of Unity and Divergence
Batik, with its interplay of motifs and colors, reflects the unique identities within Indonesia and, by extension, ASEAN—a region whose diversity is both its strength and its most enduring diplomatic challenge. At the East Asia Summit, when Canada’s Foreign Minister Melanie Joly arrived in a blue batik and Australia’s Penny Wong in green, each garment bespoke their countries’ distinct presence yet evoked a common purpose: to seek dialogue amid difference.The symbolism was not lost on the participants. President Joko Widodo, host to this colourful tableau, reiterated in his welcoming remarks that ASEAN "must not become an arena for competition, must not become a proxy for any state, and international law must be consistently respected." His words echoed the foundational vision of ASEAN as a neutral convener and consensus-builder—an imperative that has grown more urgent as external powers jostle for influence in the Indo-Pacific.
This vision, however, faces formidable obstacles. Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi summarised the regional mood succinctly: “Some say Indo-Pacific is experiencing Cold War symptoms in a hot spot.” The undercurrent of distrust and strategic uncertainty was palpable, with numerous disputes—from the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait to cross-strait economic rivalries—simmering just beneath the surface of the summit’s cordial optics.
Batik as a Locus of Soft Power
Indonesia’s choice to use batik as diplomatic attire goes far beyond aesthetic preference; it is part of an intentional, decades-long strategy to amplify its soft power. Unesco’s recognition of batik as an "Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity" in 2009 cemented its status as a cultural ambassador. In the context of multilateral forums, batik fosters a shared experience and signals a collective respect for Indonesia’s heritage—crucial for building trust among leaders whose formal negotiations often stall in the face of hard security interests.This sartorial diplomacy also subtly realigns the optics of global power. Where suits and ties might foreground Western-centric norms, batik brings attention to Southeast Asia’s own traditions, reaffirming Indonesia’s position as a cultural and diplomatic hub. The diversity of patterns—plant motifs for China’s Wang Yi, animal motifs for Russia’s Sergey Lavrov and the United States’ Antony Blinken—underscored that each country cued its own narrative while engaging in a visually unified regional dialogue.
Behind the Patterns: Realpolitik and Risk
For all its outward harmony, the summit's proceedings unfolded against a backdrop of heightened global tension. The mere presence of Wang Yi and Blinken—representing the world’s two most powerful, and currently most adversarial, states—was newsworthy. Their private meeting, described by the US State Department as “candid and constructive,” yielded no tangible breakthrough but functioned as a signal that lines of communication remain open, if fragile.Observers would be wise not to overstate the unifying power of ceremonial symbolism. While batik provided a congenial, even familial, cloak to the proceedings—Wang and Jokowi’s warm handshake likened to a large family gathering—it could not mask the region’s deep-seated mistrust. Countries remain split not just along cultural lines but by issues of sovereignty, resource competition, and the ongoing pressure to choose sides or, at a minimum, hedge between Western and Chinese blocs.
President Jokowi’s insistence that ASEAN not become a proxy theater points to a growing discomfort among Southeast Asian nations about being drawn into “great power” rivalries. Several have been subject to direct economic or military pressure, raising questions as to how the group can maintain its cherished “centrality” in regional affairs. Some analysts argue that ASEAN’s norm of non-intervention and consensus, while promoting inclusiveness, limits its capacity for rapid or strong collective action on issues like the South China Sea dispute or Myanmar’s civil unrest.
Dialogue Over Division: The Forum in Focus
The sequence of summits—East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, and the SEANWFZ Protocol Commission—showcased ASEAN’s convening power. These forums, designed to address security, economic, and political challenges, have over the past two decades expanded to include not just Southeast Asian states but major extra-regional partners such as the United States, China, India, Canada, Russia, Australia, and the European Union.This “ASEAN Plus” format brings benefits: it ensures that regional issues are not decided by external powers alone, and offers a platform for smaller states to express collective concerns. Yet the sheer diversity at the table complicates consensus. For instance, joint statements on contentious topics—such as maritime security or adherence to international law—often require painstaking wordsmithing to avoid offending any particular party or implicating one of the group’s own members.
The regional diversity, mirrored in batik’s variability, means that every country must weigh common interests—like economic growth and stability—against bilateral priorities and historic grievances. This balancing act can slow down progress on critical issues, such as developing a binding Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. While progress was made in Jakarta on some fronts, fundamental disagreements persist, and the forums routinely end with more reaffirmation of process than substantive policy change.
The Performance and the Limits of ASEAN Centrality
At the heart of Asia-Pacific diplomacy lies the concept of ASEAN centrality—the idea that Southeast Asian nations set the agenda and maintain ownership over regional problem-solving. It is this doctrine that supports President Jokowi’s call for the region not to become a “proxy,” and it infuses the rhetoric of nearly every summit in which ASEAN is a participant.In practice, however, centrality has proven a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has allowed ASEAN to avoid becoming a battleground for US-China rivalry by maintaining an open, inclusive dialogue structure. On the other, its unanimity requirement often neuters collective action. When Myanmar’s military coup unravelled ASEAN’s foundational principles of democracy and peaceful dialogue, the association struggled to produce concrete consequences—a failure that critics attribute to the bloc’s reliance on consensus and reluctance to interfere in members’ internal affairs.
Nonetheless, the Jakarta summits reinforced Southeast Asia’s role as an indispensable forum for great power engagement—one where dialogue, for all its limits, is still possible even at times of maximal tension. The use of batik, with its heritage significance, added a conciliatory note to these difficult interactions, reminding all parties of both the potential and the fragility in forging a patchwork unity.
Strengths: Creation of Symbolic and Practical Space for Dialogue
- Cultural Soft Power: The deliberate use of batik projected a unique Southeast Asian soft power, subtly shifting the diplomatic narrative toward cultural respect and away from adversarial posturing. This strategic branding can help make the host nation’s culture part of the discussion and foster a spirit of empathy.
- Platform for Blunt Conversation: The summit enabled important, often difficult, conversations. Even unscheduled private meetings—like those between US and Chinese officials—provide crucial venues for engagement that might prevent escalation in periods of mistrust.
- Reaffirmation of Multilateralism: Despite external pressures, ASEAN’s multilateral approach demonstrates that inclusive dialogue involving diverse countries remains a vital tool for managing instability—at a time when bloc politics and zero-sum thinking threaten region-wide cooperation.
Potential Risks and Unresolved Tensions
- Symbolism versus Substance: The orchestrated displays of unity, such as the coordinated batik dress, risk papering over deep and unresolved strategic divisions. Without concrete mechanisms to enforce collective decisions, ASEAN’s role may devolve into that of a symbolic convener rather than an effective arbiter.
- Proxy Dynamics: The risk of ASEAN becoming a proxy battlefield for competing external interests is real and growing—a point President Jokowi was at pains to highlight. Discreet lobbying, economic incentives, and military posturing by powers like the US and China can exacerbate divisions among member states.
- Limits of Consensus: While consensus has enabled inclusivity and prevented domination by any single power, it has also stymied action on crises that require speed and unity, such as Myanmar’s political breakdown or rising maritime militarization.
- Diplomatic Fatigue: The proliferation of formal meetings—while promoting engagement—also risks creating “diplomatic fatigue,” diluting focus and potentially obscuring urgent priorities behind a haze of communiqués and photo opportunities.
Conclusion: Toward a Durable Regional Fabric
The recent diplomatic round in Jakarta, with its batik-clad ministers and careful choreography, underscored both the resilience and fragility of Southeast Asian diplomacy. Just as no two batik patterns are alike, the region’s states bring complexity and individuality—requiring not uniformity, but a sophisticated form of coexistence that values dialogue, respects difference, and remains vigilant against forces seeking to unravel its hard-won patchwork of cooperation.Batik diplomacy, in this context, is not just spectacle but a subtle assertion: Southeast Asia can—and must—craft its own narrative and mediate its own future, even as larger powers cast long shadows. Whether this fabric is strong enough to weather the rougher tides of 21st-century geopolitics remains to be seen, but its presence at the negotiating table introduces a uniquely regional note of optimism and agency.
As global power dynamics continue to shift, the lessons of Jakarta's summit will resonate: diplomacy is both art and negotiation, tradition and innovation. Only by weaving these strands together—amid diversity, uncertainty, and contest—can Asia craft a future that, like the best batik, is greater than the sum of its variegated parts.
Source: Kompas.id Batik Diplomacy Amid Geopolitical Tensions
