DECEMBER 22 — Indonesia’s decision to limit or delay certain forms of foreign disaster assistance to Sumatra in the wake of severe floods and landslides has triggered predictable outrage.
Social media framed the issue as moral betrayal. Some even accused Jakarta of pride at the expense of human lives.
But that reading misunderstands a core tenet of Indonesian political psychology: mandiri – the ethic of self-reliance and resilience.
It also ignores a simple reality: the Home Affairs Minister, Tito Karnavian, is right to insist that Indonesia first rely on its own capabilities before turning to external aid.
Mandiri is not indifference – it is confidence
The floods across Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra were met with rapid deployment of helicopters, search-and-rescue teams, logistics networks, and state budgets.
This is not a symbolic gesture – it is a demonstration of institutional competence.
A state with a population of 270 million spread across more than 17,000 islands must, by necessity, develop internal strength instead of waiting for external rescue.
Tito Karnavian’s core argument reflects this logic: public confidence depends on demonstrating capacity.
A government that looks helpless invites panic. A government that acts decisively reinforces national belief. Mandiri means: we can do this first ourselves. That is not arrogance.
It is statecraft.
A procedural safeguard, not a diplomatic insult
Foreign humanitarian donations are not rejected.
But Indonesia draws a clear line between private relief and government-to-government aid. The latter requires a formal disaster designation under Indonesian law.
Critics see red tape.
Tito sees positive sovereignty.
And positive sovereignty matters because aid without regulation creates parallel command chains – a recipe for confusion in evacuation zones. Indonesia remembers 2004.
It remembers the logistical chaos, duplication, and overwhelming foreign presence. Mandiri is informed by trauma as much as pride.
Acknowledging goodwill without surrendering proportion
Some Malaysians were upset when their assistance was described as small relative to Indonesia’s overall expenditure. They misunderstood the point.
Tito was not disparaging moral generosity – he was pointing out scale.
When the state commits billions of rupiah to a disaster response, it must ensure that Indonesia remains the guarantor of Indonesian welfare.
Allowing foreign aid to overshadow national action would invert that principle. Tito’s clarification – acknowledging goodwill while defending Indonesian pride – strikes the correct balance.
Domestic solidarity comes before international theatre
Indonesia’s doctrine of mandiri prioritises internal cooperation.
Tens of billions of rupiah have already been mobilised from provincial governments for Sumatra.
That is Indonesians helping Indonesians – a reaffirmation of gotong-royong, the ethic of mutual help.
Some may prefer dramatic gestures from abroad.
Tito prefers coordination at home, because disaster zones collapse when multiple unregulated actors jostle for access, attention, or credit.
Order is humanitarianism.
Resilience today prevents structural dependence tomorrow
Indonesia suffers more natural disasters annually than nearly any other nation.
If every weather shock triggers automatic foreign intervention, dependency becomes institutionalised. Mandiri rejects that trajectory.
Tito’s insistence on domestic capability-building – logistics, funding, manpower, professional disaster response – is forward-looking.
Foreign support should complement strength, not replace it.
Disaster autonomy ultimately translates into geopolitical autonomy.
Sovereignty is not ingratitude
Indonesia is not scolding kindness. It is defending control – legal, psychological, and logistical.
Tito Karnavian’s stance should be understood in that frame: a resilient Indonesia remains a compassionate Indonesia.
Positive sovereignty does not negate solidarity. Humanitarian appreciation and national dignity can coexist.
Foreign observers may find mandiri inconvenient. Indonesians, however, have earned it through history, trauma, and resolve.
In disaster management as in geopolitics, a country that can say “no, not yet” is not hostile – it is self-assured. And in that sense, Tito Karnavian is right.
* Phar Kim Beng is professor of Asean Studies and director at the Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS), International Islamic University of Malaysia
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
