In late October, the 3rd International Minsk Conference on Eurasian Security was held in the capital of Belarus, drawing attention amid the ongoing escalation across the European continent.
In a world marked by shifting power poles, Eurasia has assumed a pivotal position as a driving force behind the emerging new world order. Just over a decade ago, imagining a world which is moving away from unipolarity would have seemed unthinkable — at least for societies in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia. Yet here we are today.
The world is moving in a different direction, drifting away from unipolar dominance and transforming itself into multipolarity. The iron law of history can no longer be bent — it has become inevitable.
Discussing Eurasia in Indonesia or Southeast Asia is not as common as discussing other parts of Europe. Yet the region is vital to ASEAN’s interests. Eurasian security is not something “far to the north” — it directly affects Indonesia’s national interests, particularly in terms of food security.
Russia and Belarus are two of the world’s largest fertiliser exporters, supplying a quarter of global demand, and have maintained longstanding historical ties with Indonesia. For this reason, the question of Eurasian security has direct implications for Indonesia’s national resilience in food security.
The Spirit of a New Eurasia and Indonesia’s Interest
The emerging Eurasian spirit shares multiple intersections with Indonesia and ASEAN, and these commonalities create a sense of comfort in dialogue. Indonesia’s foreign policy doctrine of “bebas aktif” — independent and active — first articulated by Vice President Mohammad Hatta in his 1948 address “Rowing Between Two Reefs”, continues to shape Indonesia’s diplomacy to this day.
It is thus unsurprising that cooperation between Indonesia and both Russia and Belarus has endured amid global geopolitical tensions and shifting poles of power; it is grounded in shared choices for dialogue, rationality, and mutual respect for sovereignty.
The concept of multipolarity and the Eurasian ethos resonate strongly in Indonesia, as their underlying philosophy aligns with how Indonesia perceives ethical balance as a foundation for shared stability.
Moreover, the Eurasian values of dialogue, multipolarity, and non-dominance are inherently consistent with Indonesia’s foreign policy principles. This is precisely what keeps the “bebas aktif” doctrine relevant in a multipolar world.
These values also echo the spirit of the Non-Aligned Movement — the commitment of each state to remain independent and active, free from the influence of any power bloc.
As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted, the concept of “poles” in a multipolar network should not be mistaken for traditional bloc politics as seen during the Cold War.
In one of Indonesia’s leading media outlets, I once wrote about “The Eurasian Charter and the New Path of Multipolarity and Regional Autonomy,” which argued that the Charter seeks to break through geopolitical deadlocks.
It does so by offering a refreshing approach to regional security architecture — one based on multipolarity, diversity, and respect for state sovereignty — something markedly different from supranational entities such as the European Union (EU), which often reduces the autonomy of its member states.
In my view, regional security should not only be shaped by geopolitical realities but also by a shared consensus embodied in joint declarations — such as the Eurasian Charter on Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century, which serves as a strategic guide. By comparison, Southeast Asian nations have their own joint consensus within the ASEAN Charter.
Long before tensions in Europe were “transferred” to the Asia-Pacific, ASEAN had already sought to finalise a Code of Conduct with China to manage potential friction in the North Natuna Sea (South China Sea) and to preserve regional stability.
Amid the rising war rhetoric from the EU and the UK, Eurasia stands as a refreshing counter-current — leading efforts toward global stability and mitigating the destabilisation often caused by the West.
The World Needs Collaboration
At the Minsk forum, Professor Glenn Diesen of the University of South-Eastern Norway observed that economic cooperation with major powers such as Russia and China provides an alternative way to resist hegemony — without falling into escalation traps.
Indeed, the potential for cooperation with the Eurasian region is too promising to ignore — it benefits all parties involved. Nguyen Chien Thang, Director of the Institute for European and American Studies at the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, noted that “the path to security for all lies through active economic cooperation,” which serves as a positive instrument for reducing global tensions.
This view aligns with that of Liu Qing, Deputy Director of the China Institute of International Studies, who argued that economics and security are inseparable and symbolically intertwined — their mutual dependence compels both sides to safeguard shared security needs.
Strengthening Eurasian cooperation with the Global South has become one of the most widely accepted forms of collaboration, given its positive impact on national interests — and this represents one of the true essences of multipolarity.
This perspective is crucial for Indonesia, where economics and security are not seen as separate domains but as the fundamental components of strategic autonomy — the very goal Indonesia seeks amid global geopolitical pressures.
Lessons from Eurasia for the Indo-Pacific
Unlike Eurasia, which is working to formulate its collective security architecture, the Indo-Pacific region has experienced a regression of peace due to the aggressive posture of the United States — determined to contain China’s influence through divisive military alliances that heighten regional tensions.
The existence of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) — comprising the United States, Japan, India, and Australia — and the AUKUS alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, both formed in rivalry with China, risks driving the region toward future escalation.
The planned deployment of AUKUS nuclear submarines threatens regional stability and could provoke new tensions, particularly in Southeast Asia, where it is viewed as a violation of the spirit of the SEANWFZ (Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone).
This geopolitical reality should prompt countries in the region to look toward the Eurasian framework, which offers an integration model based on shared interests — without compelling nations to sacrifice their sovereignty.
Even as one of the world’s foremost military powers, Russia consistently emphasises the principle of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia, strengthening the region’s security architecture through partnerships with Belarus, North Korea, Iran and multilateral frameworks such as the CSTO, SCO and CIS.
A new global configuration is thus taking shape — centred on collective Eurasian security. While the Indo-Pacific remains haunted by bloc rivalries, the Eurasian model demonstrates that genuine security emerges from equality, not dominance — from ensuring one’s own safety without undermining that of others.
We are witnessing history unfold as the world’s axis is being redrawn. Jakarta, like Minsk, can take the initiative to launch regional dialogues to promote an inclusive and equitable security architecture based on shared interests.
Such an initiative would align not only with the perspectives of Eurasia and China — both major players in the Indo-Pacific — but also with Indonesia’s long-standing “bebas aktif” principle that underpins its foreign policy.
If Eurasia can build stability upon the foundation of equality, this resonance must extend into the Indo-Pacific — to shape a new regional security norm.
This effort is vital to ensure that multipolarity does not devolve into fragmentation, but rather evolves into a fairer order for all.
