Indonesia, Venezuela, and the Question of Clarity in Position: A Diplomatic Communication Perspective

The Indonesian government’s response to the escalation of tensions between the United States and Venezuela reveals serious issues in the direction of its international communication, particularly as the situation has extended to threats against other countries such as Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and Denmark. The sharpest criticism came from Indonesia’s 6th Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dino Patti Djalal, who publicly questioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statement for failing to clearly identify the United States as the actor behind the alleged attack on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The official statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs tended to be highly standard, normative, and neutral, without explicitly naming the main actor potentially responsible for violations of international law. Only after public criticism did Foreign Minister Sugiono express concern over the use or threat of force, which risks creating a dangerous precedent in international relations—yet still without directly naming the perpetrator.

The Foreign Minister also called on all parties to prioritize dialogue, exercise restraint, and comply with international law, including the principles enshrined in the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. Rather than explicitly naming the United States as the responsible actor, Indonesia appears to have pursued other objectives in its public communication, such as:

• Emphasizing Indonesia’s neutral stance in order to prevent misinterpretation of international tensions.
• Safeguarding diplomatic relations between Indonesia and the countries involved, encompassing political, security, educational, and economic cooperation.

This raises the question: what steps should the Indonesian government take to play a meaningful role amid this conflict?

• Explain Through the Lens of National Interest
  Emphasize why Indonesia rejects threats, unilateral sanctions, or political pressure, as these would undermine global stability and negatively affect Indonesia’s national interests.
• Use Public Language That Is Easily Understood
  Language that is considered safe for internal diplomacy is not always appropriate for the public during a crisis. Statements must be contextual and accessible to the broader public.
• Demonstrate Moral Leadership
  Do not wait for other countries to speak out. A consistent and clear stance will, in fact, strengthen Indonesia’s diplomatic position.