Referring to Indonesia’s Ministry Foreign Affairs 2025-2029 strategic master plan (RENSTRA), BRICS is intended as a platform for inclusive dialogue in order to create a multilateral system and global order that is more representative, while also championing developing countries interest and bridge differences with developed countries. In retrospect, Indonesia’s position to take an active position in BRICS is indeed needed. BRICS requires a middle power that is able to serve as an intermediary to position the institution as a champion of development for the developing countries, and anchor BRICS not as a tool for competing actor interest in politics. Without the role of middle power to bridge this, the group effort may be perceived as a threat instead of a common platform between developing and developed countries. Referencing prior case of BRICS push for de-dollarization. The movement was taken as a threat with the US threatening a punitive measure to countries that support the idea.

In comparison Indonesia was able to push for a similar goal through the function of local currency settlement initiatives in nurturing resilience against volatility from dollar as a settlement during its chairmanship in G20 instead. Even in the context of non-US membership, such as the ASEAN plus three arrangement, a similar initiative for reducing reliance on one currency of the dollar for settlement was able to be discussed without the reactive punitive measures from concerning parties similar to the case of BRICS. These initiatives were able to frame alternatives to reliance with dollars, while maintaining pro-development orientation in their overall goal. Both cases clearly highlight that........

© Eurasia Review