March 6, 2025
SYDNEY – The recent confrontation at the Oval Office between United States President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy revealed a stark reality about global power politics. What was expected to be a diplomatic discussion on ending the war in Ukraine instead became a moment of high-tempered argument.
Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelenskyy for not showing enough gratitude for US aid and proposed that Ukraine compensate by granting the US access to its valuable rare-earth minerals. The demand signaled a shift from traditional alliances based on shared values to a more transactional approach.
This reminisced colonial practices in the past, when powerful nations justified their influence over weaker states by offering security, aid or economic development while extracting natural resources in return. Although Ukraine is not a colony, the expectation that it must offer mineral rights in exchange for US military aid raises important questions about the persistence of hierarchical relationships in international diplomacy.
The implications of this event extend beyond Ukraine. For Indonesia, a nation rich in natural resources and strategically located in the Indo-Pacific, this development serves as yet another reminder to maintain its economic and political independence. The international system is changing and relationships between powerful and developing nations are increasingly shaped by economic leverage rather than mutual trust.
The White House event reflects a broader shift in how some world leaders view international partnerships. Rather than treating alliances as long-term commitments based on shared security interests, Trump and his allies consider them business transactions. Military aid, economic cooperation and diplomatic support are services requiring tangible returns.
This perspective is by no means new. During his first term, Trump suggested that the US should have taken Iraq’s oil after the 2003 invasion and repeatedly pressured NATO allies to increase their financial contributions.
For Indonesia, this change raises important considerations. If US foreign policy continues to prioritize economic returns over strategic partnerships, what would this mean for Jakarta’s future engagements with Washington? As Indonesia strengthens its defense cooperation with the US in the Indo-Pacific, would Trump demand access to Indonesia’s critical minerals, including nickel, or maritime trade routes in exchange for continued support?
What Trump has done to Zelenskyy bears similarity to colonial economic arrangements, in which a weaker nation must grant the powerful access to its natural wealth in exchange for protection. Colonial powers often framed their control over resource-rich territories as mutually beneficial, claiming that their military presence and administrative rule justified the economic extraction of local resources.
During the Dutch rule of Indonesia, vast amounts of natural wealth here were exploited to benefit the colonial master. Even after independence, Indonesia continued to struggle with the influence of multinational corporations that controlled much of its resource extraction. The fight for economic sovereignty has been a defining feature of the country’s modern history.
In recent years, Indonesia has taken bold steps to control its strategic resources. The decision to ban nickel ore exports and push for domestic processing was a clear assertion of national interests. The policy has strengthened Indonesia’s economic standing and reduced its dependency on foreign entities.
However, as global demand for critical minerals increases, major powers will continue to seek access to these resources. If Trump is willing to pressure Ukraine into trading its minerals for military aid, he could threaten Indonesia in the future, especially if regional tensions escalate.
For Indonesia, the Trump-Zelenskyy argument raises a significant challenge for the country’s bebas aktif (independent and active) foreign policy. Currently Indonesia has built good relationships with both the US and China while avoiding dependence on either. However, will it be harder for Indonesia to maintain its non-aligned policy amid the intensifying big power rivalry?
Would closer military cooperation with the US require Indonesia, for example, to take a more assertive stance against China? Would the huge Chinese investment in Indonesia bring political expectations that could limit Indonesia’s policy choices?
Following the confrontation between Trump and Zelenskyy, Indonesia must take proactive steps to ensure its sovereignty is not compromised. One of the most crucial strategies is strengthening its economic independence. Ensuring that key industries, particularly energy and minerals, remain under national control will reduce vulnerability to external pressures. The current focus on developing downstream industries for nickel and other minerals is a right step in this direction.
Diplomatically, Indonesia must continue to assert its non-aligned position while deepening strategic relationships with multiple partners. Maintaining a diversified network of allies and strategic partners will prevent overreliance on a single power, reducing the risk of being pressured into one-sided agreements.
Indonesia must also resist the notion that aid and cooperation have strings attached. Economic and military partnerships should be framed as mutual interests, not acts of generosity that require submission in return. This principle should guide Indonesia’s engagements with all major powers.
The Trump-Zelenskyy showdown is more than just an episode of the US political drama. It reflects a broader shift in how global powers interact with smaller nations. The expectation that military and economic assistance should be repaid with natural resources or political compliance is a challenge facing developing countries.
If major powers are increasingly treating alliances as transactional, how should Indonesia navigate its relationships to avoid a one-sided relationship? If security and economic cooperation come with conditions, what strategies should Indonesia adopt to protect its autonomy? As Indonesia emerges as a global player, how will it ensure that it is treated as an equal partner, rather than a resource-rich nation to bargain with?
The answers will define Indonesia’s role in the emerging world order. The choices made today will determine whether Indonesia remains an independent force in global politics.
The writer is a PhD student at the Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney and a lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Paramadina University, Jakarta.