Indonesia Eyes Technocrat as Top US Diplomat After Two-Year Gap
Lawmakers in Jakarta have approved Dwisuryo Indroyono Soesilo as envoy to the US following a closed-door vetting process, Deputy Speaker of Parliament Adies Kadir told Bloomberg News. Soesilo, 70, is a former cabinet minister as well as a geologist and veteran marine governance expert.
His nomination awaits a formal nod from President Prabowo Subianto, who is also expected unveil a slate of ambassadors on a date to be announced. The appointment also requires a sign-off by the US.
A two-year absence of an ambassador in Washington, along with several other extended vacancies, has drawn criticism from former officials and analysts. They say the gaps have weakened Indonesia's diplomatic leverage amid shifting global alliances and economic pressures. Prabowo is pursuing closer ties with countries including China and Russia while also trying to negotiate a tariffs deal with the US, one of its largest export markets.
A recent social media post by a former ambassador to the US, Dino Patti Djalal, urging Prabowo to swiftly fill positions has drawn more than half a million views. Foreign Minister Sugiono last month said the delay 'was our mistake,' citing challenges in selecting suitable candidates.
Soesilo, whose father served as US ambassador in the 1980s under former ruler Suharto, didn't respond to Bloomberg requests for comment. He acknowledged his vetting to local media earlier this month but said the process wasn't finished.
Soesilo earned graduate degrees in remote sensing from the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa before dedicating much of his career to marine research and fisheries policy, including within Indonesian government agencies.
He briefly served as director of fisheries and aquaculture at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, and later as coordinating minister for maritime affairs under former President Joko Widodo. He has not previously held a diplomatic post.
The nomination is part of a broader diplomatic rotation involving 24 ambassadorial posts, including to missions in Germany, the United Nations and North Korea. Names are proposed by the president, and the picks mostly indicate Prabowo is favoring political loyalty and technocratic expertise over traditional diplomatic experience for the bigger roles.
He has suggested a former campaign team member as envoy to Malaysia, and a one-time adviser for the mission in Singapore, a significant channel for foreign investment into Indonesia. Local media reported that the sister and adviser to Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, a powerbroker who backed Prabowo's presidential bid, is expected to serve as ambassador to Japan.
Career diplomats have instead been nominated to positions considered less politically sensitive, including to Germany, Vietnam and the UN.
Foreign policy experts have expressed concern about the shift in diplomatic strategy for the world's fourth-most populous nation, especially given uncertainties around US political dynamics.
In the case of representation in Washington, 'what matters most now is having access and experience with Trump himself,' said Dedi Dinarto, lead Indonesia analyst and senior associate at strategic advisory firm Global Counsel LLC. 'Indonesia risks being left out of key conversations if its top envoy can't navigate that environment.'
Since taking office last year, Prabowo has traveled frequently, including visits to China, the Middle East, Southeast Asian neighbors, Russia and Europe. He recently attended the BRICS summit in Brazil — the first since Indonesia joined the bloc earlier this year — and is scheduled for meetings in Brussels and Paris in coming days.
'In a command-style government like this, where the president controls all foreign policy decisions, even appointing capable ambassadors becomes difficult,' said Nicky D. Fahrizal, a foreign policy researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta. 'Even ambassadors with strong diplomatic credentials may find themselves powerless.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Scoring with AI not enough to crack US enterprise code
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Indian artificial intelligence startups, which are making a beeline to the US to be close to customers, are taking longer to conclude deals and run pilots with US enterprises, amid rising competition and changing business landscape, founders and investors startups are looking at strategic partners and investors who have deep enterprise networks and can help them connect with potential customers, they told SaaS, where the market had evolved and people were buying, founders were able to get a couple of customers through emails and messages, but in the AI world, confusion is high even for buyers, Accel India partner Shekhar Kirani said. 'So, they need assistance at least for the next 12-24 months, when it becomes obvious that the products work.' Enterprise sales have always been hard and required the founders to work on-site to gain the last couple of years, AI has changed the landscape by drastically bringing down the time taken to develop a product. This has resulted in proliferation of AI platforms and applications, cluttering the market, increasing competition and changing the enterprise sales Ayyagari, cofounder, SnowMountain AI , an agentic AI platform for banking and financial services, said with AI coming in, the time taken to close the deals have increased significantly, with some companies going as far as getting into code-level discussions to gain trust from customers.'Earlier it would take 6-9 months to get a signalling from a company, if they are interested in the product or not. Now that is taking 12-18 months. Even getting demos is hard now,' he said. He explained that more often than not enterprises are running multiple pilots and are beginning to put new pilots on pause till they have Krishnan, founder of NuWare, a US-based IT services company, said during his conversations with the chief information officers of large enterprises in the US, he has found that they are often seeing over 20 companies that are selling similar products and hardly have time to have a demo with each of these Vivek Khandelwal, cofounder of agentic AI solutions startup CogniSwitch , was in the market for a security compliance product and said he was confused.'This market is equally miserable for buyers. We are at a point where we have to flip a coin and go with whoever it is, because there are so many products and everyone's messaging is exactly the same,' he went ahead with a company that was known to him. But he agrees that the market is Agarwal, cofounder of Raga AI, which offers an agentic workflow testing platform, said though building enterprise-quality products is tough, the field has become noisy, confusing the buyers as navigate this challenge, founders are looking to partner with investors and domain experts that can help with of SnowMountain AI said his company has partnered with domain experts such as former banking executives to get customers Abbey, founder of an AI startup catering to the banking and financial services companies, said she partners with strategic investors in the US that can make warm Krishnan, who also runs investment firm NuVentures, said they are helping their portfolio companies with customer introductions, which are now becoming critical and a key differentiator as companies look to break into enterprises in the Goyal, partner, Stellaris Venture Partners, said customer introduction is one of the most critical help portfolio companies need as they search for a product-market fit and early traction in an increasing competition for enterprise founders and investors are navigating a dynamic business landscape, there are other challenges as previous tech cycles, speed is the moat in AI, as the technology evolves at a rapid pace. This means startups need to iterate fast and that is one of the reasons founders are moving to the who was cited earlier, said she flies in and out of the US to be closer to customers and iterate Goyal said many enterprises are in a wait-and-watch mode as continued competitiveness of existing solutions is questionable with underlying technology evolving so rapidly. In addition, amid the uncertain macroeconomic environment, investments are being postponed; this presents a challenge as well.
Mint
33 minutes ago
- Mint
Why no one blows the whistle until a short-seller turns up
The reaction to US-based short seller Viceroy Research's scathing report on the Vedanta Group was as predictable as it was performative. The company, not surprisingly, called the allegations 'baseless". There was also the familiar barrage of nationalist rhetoric summed up by former Rajya Sabha MP and BJP national executive member Swapan Dasgupta, who tweeted: 'Is there a concerted attempt by dodgy US financial organisations to undermine India's corporates/financial institutions?" But strip away the outrage, and the uncomfortable question remains: why did it take a foreign short-seller to say what no one in India's financial ecosystem had the courage or incentive to? After all, as Vedanta's CEO Deshnee Naidoo admitted, the points raised in the report are not new and have been previously disclosed to shareholders. Viceroy's dossier alleges opaque structures, questionable related-party transactions, and fragile debt positions across the sprawling Vedanta empire. You don't need to agree with every bit of the report. The key issue is that in a market ecosystem populated by regulators, exchanges, research analysts and institutional investors, why was such scrutiny absent until a short-seller showed up? The discomfiting answer is the lack of incentives. Reviled they may be, but short sellers are among the few market participants who have a genuine incentive to unearth problems inside companies. Since they make money when stock prices of their target companies fall, they are financially motivated to find what others ignore. Their motives are certainly not altruistic, but they drive the kind of transparency and accountability that almost all other market players shy away from. Take the recent Jane Street saga. The US-based high-frequency trader was eventually censured by Sebi for allegedly fraudulent and manipulative trades in index options. Sebi's action came as a surprise, but Jane Street's actions were known and discussed widely for months before the regulator's action. Shankar Sharma, Veteran investor and founder of GQuant Investech, posed the obvious question: Why did the exchange not act earlier? His answer: "Simple conflict of interest…How can they sanction JS when it drives FO volume massively, hence SE profits." That's because when you trade F&O contracts on the NSE, you are charged a small percentage of the trade value as transaction fees. Sharma's critique strikes at the core of our market structure; when exchanges benefit from the very entities they are meant to police, enforcement becomes a question of convenience rather than principle. That's why independent, profit-seeking actors like short-sellers are necessary, even if they operate in the shadows. It is no accident that some of the most explosive corporate scandals like Adani in India, Wirecard in Germany and Luckin Coffee in China, were flagged first by short-sellers. In each case, insiders maintained a studied silence till the proverbial fecal matter hit the overhead fan. In each case, external watchdogs were too slow or too compromised. The dirty work was done by someone with skin in the game and a profit motive. Of course, short-sellers can be wrong. They exaggerate, cherry-pick and even manipulate. But their work, when rooted in data and grounded in fact, performs a critical function. They are often the only ones willing to publicly accuse a company of fraud — because they have the most to gain if they're right, and the most to lose if they're wrong. Could the questions that Viceroy posed to Vedanta have been asked by its independent directors? Or its bankers? Or rating agencies? Or large institutional shareholders (foreign institutional investors (FIIs) and domestic institutional investors (DIIs) who together hold over 27% stake in Vedanta Ltd)? Possibly. But the brutal truth is that for none of them did the risk-reward trade-off make sense. The vitriol aimed at Viceroy isn't anything new. Others who've dared to say the emperor is naked, have faced far worse. In June 2012, Canada-based Veritas Investment Research called out Anil Ambani-group company Reliance Communications (RCom) for its accounting practices and corporate governance, leading to significant a drop in the company's stock price. Here's how the telco responded to the charges: 'The Veritas report lacks any credibility and is malafide in intent and approach…The report is full of factual inaccuracies, and baseless allegations masquerading as research." By 2016, RCom was desperately trying to sell assets in a bid to pay off its ₹45,000 crore of debt. In February 2019, it filed for bankruptcy. In another 2011 report, Veritas called out Kingfisher Airlines for 'poor disclosures, capricious accounting policies and understated liabilities". The company dubbed the report 'mischievous and sensational". In 2012, Kingfisher ceased operations and faced bankruptcy proceedings. As for Veritas, it was forced to wind up its business in India in 2014 after Nitin Mangal, one of its analysts, was remanded in custody for his report raising accounting and governance issues at Indiabulls Financial Services, Indiabulls Real Estate and other group firms. Markets need naysayers as much as they need Yes men and women, because uncomfortable truths often come from those with a vested interest in revealing them. Until domestic institutions are more willing, and incentivized, to speak up, we should be careful of shooting the messenger and look at the message instead.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
35 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump backtracks on striking Moscow, says Zelenskyy 'shouldn't target' Russian capital
Trump has reversed course, saying Ukraine should not target Moscow, as he denied reports that he urged strikes on Russian cities, outlining new conditions for ending the war. read more US President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meet in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 28. File image/AFP In a big U-turn, US President Donald Trump on Tuesday (Jul 15) said that Ukraine should not strike Moscow, dismissing reports that he had urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to attack the Russian capital during a call on July 4. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said, 'No, he shouldn't target Moscow.' When asked if the US was considering sending long-range missiles to Ukraine, Trump replied, 'No, we're not looking to.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD His comments came just a day after he announced what he called a tougher stance against Russia, which includes new military aid for Ukraine. Earlier, the Financial Times reported that during the July 4 call, Trump allegedly asked Zelensky, 'Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? Can you hit St Petersburg too?' According to the report, Zelensky responded, 'Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.' The report claimed Trump suggested striking Russian cities could 'make them [Russians] feel the pain' and push President Vladimir Putin toward negotiations. 'I am on nobody's side,' Trump told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House. 'I am on humanity's side because I want to stop the killing.' A spokesperson clarified that 'President Trump was merely asking a question, not encouraging further violence,' and added, 'He's working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war.' Trump also expressed disappointment with President Putin, saying that while he has helped resolve other conflicts, the war in Ukraine remains unsolved. He called the conflict 'a Biden war, not a Trump war,' and said his goal is to find a way for the US to step back from the situation. Trump has given Russia a 50-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire or face new US sanctions and oil tariffs—a shift that signals a tougher approach but leaves questions about how negotiations might proceed. 'At the end of the 50 days, if we don't have a deal, it's going to be too bad,' Trump said, without offering details on what an agreement would look like. He defended the timeline, saying, 'I don't think 50 days is very long—and it could be sooner than that.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He also threatened 'severe' tariffs if Russia doesn't end the war within the next 50 days, warning, 'If there's no deal in 50 days, we'll impose secondary tariffs—100 percent. That's how it's going to be.' Trump's remarks come just weeks after the Pentagon halted arms deliveries to Ukraine. Speaking from the Oval Office alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Trump confirmed that billions of dollars' worth of US-made weapons would soon be sent to NATO allies. 'We are going to produce top-of-the-line weapons, and they will go to NATO,' he told reporters.
