Close Bilaterally, Wary Globally: The Dual Structure of Indonesian Attitudes toward China from 2019 to 2026

In the study of international relations, scholars often look to public opinion to gauge the health of a nation's friendships. When one country invests heavily in another's infrastructure or trade, the hope is that this economic connection will naturally breed goodwill and trust. This idea rests on a simple premise: if two neighbors benefit from working together, they are less likely to fear one another. However, measuring this feeling is tricky. People can feel very positive about a neighbor who helps build a new road while simultaneously feeling uneasy about that same neighbor's behavior on the world stage. For years, reports on how Indonesians view China have seemed to show a population that swings wildly from deep suspicion to enthusiastic approval and back again, leaving observers to wonder if the relationship is stable at all.

A new analysis challenges this chaotic picture, arguing that the apparent swings are not a reflection of changing minds, but a result of how the questions were asked. Researchers examined a decade of survey data from Southeast Asia and discovered that the numbers were being misread because two different types of questions were being mixed together. One set of questions asked people how they felt about China's role as a responsible global leader, while another asked how they expected their own country's direct relationship with China to change in the coming years. When these two distinct threads were untangled, the wild volatility vanished. Instead, a clear and steady pattern emerged: Indonesian elites hold two separate views at the same time. They are consistently optimistic about the practical, day-to-day relationship with China, driven by tangible economic gains, but they remain deeply cautious about China's broader conduct as a global power.

The study focused on data collected between 2019 and 2026 from the State of Southeast Asia survey, which polls influential figures in business, government, and academia across the region. The researchers noticed that the survey instrument alternated between asking about "trust" in China's global actions and "expectations" for bilateral relations. When these answers were lumped together into a single line graph, the data looked like a rollercoaster, with approval ratings jumping from 19 percent to 58 percent and then crashing to 29 percent in just a few years. This led many to believe that Indonesian sentiment was erratic and highly sensitive to every diplomatic headline. However, the authors argue that this view is an illusion created by the survey design itself. By separating the data into two distinct tracks, the researchers found that the "trust" track remained relatively low and steady, reflecting a persistent skepticism about China's global behavior. Meanwhile, the "relations" track stayed consistently high, showing that Indonesians expected their own direct ties with China to improve, regardless of global tensions.

The driving force behind this dual attitude is a mix of economic reality and security concerns. On the positive side, the relationship is anchored by massive, visible projects that deliver immediate benefits to Indonesia. The most prominent example is the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, known locally as the Whoosh, which began commercial service in late 2023. Alongside this, Chinese investment has fueled a boom in Indonesia's nickel processing industry, a key part of the country's strategy to move up the value chain. These economic ties create a strong sense of pragmatism; as long as the projects deliver jobs and growth, the expectation for a good bilateral relationship remains high. The data shows that when these benefits are visible, optimism soars. For instance, after the high-speed rail started running, the gap between Indonesian optimism and the regional average widened significantly, reaching a peak where Indonesian elites were nearly 18 percentage points more optimistic than their neighbors.

On the other side of the scale, a different set of concerns keeps trust in check. These concerns are rooted in sovereignty and security, specifically regarding the North Natuna Sea. Indonesia and China have overlapping claims in this area, and frequent encounters between Chinese coast guard vessels and Indonesian waters create a low-level but persistent anxiety. This issue does not necessarily stop the economic cooperation, but it prevents that cooperation from turning into a deep, value-based trust in China as a global actor. The survey results show that when asked if China will "do the right thing" for global peace and security, Indonesian respondents consistently score lower than the regional average. This skepticism is not a temporary mood; it is a structural feature of the relationship. The two forces—the economic engine pushing for optimism and the security brake holding back trust—operate on parallel tracks, never fully canceling each other out.

The study also identified a brief moment in 2023 when this stable pattern seemed to break. During that year, the gap between Indonesian optimism and the regional average narrowed significantly. The researchers traced this dip to a specific combination of events: the high-speed rail project was facing intense public scrutiny over its costs and debt implications before it had fully proven its worth, and maritime tensions in the Natuna Sea had flared up again. In this brief window, the economic benefits were overshadowed by the costs, causing the pragmatic optimism to pause. However, once the railway began operating successfully and the nickel investments continued to yield results, the optimism rebounded sharply. This recovery confirms that the positive attitude is not blind or unconditional; it is tied directly to the visible delivery of economic benefits. When the benefits are clear, the optimism returns; when they are clouded by cost or conflict, the view becomes more cautious.

The most significant takeaway from this work is methodological: the way we measure opinion matters as much as the opinion itself. The apparent chaos in the raw data was not a sign of a volatile population, but a result of mixing two different questions. The authors demonstrate that treating these questions as a single measure creates a false narrative of instability. In reality, the Indonesian elite perspective is remarkably stable. It is a sophisticated, dual-layered view where economic interdependence fosters a strong desire for a good bilateral relationship, while security concerns maintain a healthy distance regarding global trust. This finding suggests that economic engagement alone cannot buy a country's full trust in a partner's global character. The two are separate goods, and one does not automatically lead to the other. For policymakers and observers, understanding this distinction is crucial. It means that a country can be a reliable economic partner while still being viewed with caution as a global power, and that these two realities can coexist without contradiction.