Indonesia, explained.
Indonesian national flags sold on a street in Banda Aceh ahead of the country's Independence Day in August 2025 (Chaideer Mahyuddin via Getty Images)
A good tariff deal means little if permits crawl and customs stumble.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
What the aunties miss about tariffsWhat the aunties miss about tariffs
Indonesian family WhatsApp groups are often a reliable barometer of national mood. So, when my aunties started debating tariff percentages – rather than forwarding TikTok videos about herbal remedies – it was clear that trade policy had gone mainstream.
They may not be economists, but they understand the scoreboard. Zero percent is a win, 19% acceptable, but anything higher a failure. It is intuitive, but also incomplete.
Tariffs are not a scoreboard. They are one variable in a much larger equation. Investors rarely fixate on a single percentage point. They assess what that number implies about risk. How long do permits take? Are customs procedures applied consistently? Are rules of origin interpreted the same way across ports? Do regulations change midstream? In practice, a five-point tariff difference can matter less than a six-month licensing delay.
Investors prefer implementation over rhetoric.
That reality has become more apparent following the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court that the Trump administration had exceeded its statutory authority, specifically its use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), in imposing certain global tariff measures. The judgement has cast uncertainty over several reciprocal trade agreements, including Indonesia’s newly negotiated Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) with the US. While the administration maintains that existing deals remain valid, the operationalisation of tariff concessions premised on IEEPA authority may now face legal and procedural complications.
The ART, which would have granted 1,819 Indonesian products tariff-free access to the US market, illustrates a broader point: tariff policy can be politically volatile and legally contestable. Preferential access secured through diplomacy may not be as stable as it appears. In such an environment, predictability at home becomes the more durable competitive asset.
Indonesia’s ART followed similar framework arrangements concluded or advanced with Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia. It was less a dramatic breakthrough than a move to avoid falling behind regional peers in managing exposure to US tariff measures. If tariff schedules across Southeast Asia converge or become legally uncertain, advantage shifts elsewhere.
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, right, was among the international leaders to attend Donald Trump's Board of Peace summit (©2026 World Economic Forum/Mattias Nutt)
Domestic sensitivities further complicate the picture. Perceptions of alignment with Washington remain politically charged. Competing narratives about the ART are circulating simultaneously: that it represents a concession extracted under pressure; that it is a diplomatic win; and that it demonstrates Indonesia’s ability to maintain strategic balance amid great-power competition. The government has leaned towards the latter framing, describing the agreement as mutually beneficial. Narrative, however, does not substitute for execution.
The real competitive test lies in operational signals such as permit timelines, customs consistency, and regulatory stability. In a region as competitive as Southeast Asia, marginal differences accumulate. Once tariff exposure levels out, throughput becomes decisive. Which government can move from agreement to shipment fastest? Which can convert preferential access into actual contracts without administrative hiccups?
The experience of the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA), which entered into force in July 2020, offers a relevant comparison. The agreement granted substantial market access from day one. Utilisation, however, did not immediately accelerate. Businesses cited limited awareness of preferences, documentation hurdles, and sector-specific import licensing requirements. Bilateral trade has grown significantly since, but a two-year business tracking by Katalis and Asialink Business found that implementation gaps periodically resurfaced. A separate AustCham ASEAN survey of Australian businesses in Southeast Asia placed Vietnam and Thailand top of mind for expansion, with Indonesia ranking fourth, reflecting an investment perception gap.
Whether that political capital translates into measurable improvements in bureaucratic performance remains to be seen.
The lesson is straightforward: tariff elimination on paper does not automatically translate into seamless commercial uptake. The same constraint would apply to Indonesia’s new arrangement with the US. Reciprocal tariff commitments, even if ultimately upheld, will not guarantee export surges unless administrative systems move at comparable speed.
Regional competition sharpens the stakes. Vietnam has built export-oriented manufacturing zones that attract foreign direct investment through competitive labour costs and dense supply-chain linkages. International benchmarks such as the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index, which measures the efficiency and predictability of customs clearance processes, consistently rank Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand ahead of Indonesia on border administration metrics. When tariff differentials narrow, even incremental advantages in documentation predictability or processing time can redirect investment flows.
Indonesia is not unaware of this challenge. The Online Single Submission system aims to consolidate licensing through a single digital portal. Recent regulatory adjustments, such as the Government Regulation 28/2025, aim to clarify timelines and improve inter-agency coordination. These reforms are significant in design. Whether enforcement is consistent across investors’ touchpoints, from ministries to regional governments and ports, is another matter.
President Prabowo Subianto’s high approval ratings, surpassing levels recorded by his two predecessors, offers political space to rationalise overlapping authorities and enforce administrative discipline. Whether that capital translates into measurable improvements in bureaucratic performance remains to be seen. In a reminder that investors prefer implementation over rhetoric, Moody’s recently revised Indonesia’s credit outlook to negative, citing governance quality and policy predictability as areas of concern.
Indonesia will remain attractive, given its market size and resource base. But when tariff policy abroad is unsettled, reliability at home becomes the differentiator.
My aunties are right that numbers matter. But the decisive number may not be the tariff percentage announced in a press release. It is the number of days between a signed agreement and a cleared container at port.
About the author
Sondang Grace Sirait
Sondang Grace Sirait is a senior strategic communicator and policy advocate with 20+ years’ experience shaping public policy messaging, supporting multisector reform programs, and driving ecosystem engagement across Southeast Asia.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
