logo putih

Cultural Diplomacy as The Foundation of Cooperation: Strengthening The Synergy of Law, Culture, and Investment Between Indonesia and China

Picture of Author

Author

Ditulis oleh: Theresia Rachelita Devia Irani
Artikel diambil dari 10 tulisan terbaik dalam kegiatan Nagantara Essay Competition 2025 kategori Profesional

 

Cultural diplomacy can be more than ceremonial exchange; when deliberately integrated  with legal cooperation and investment policy it becomes a strategic architecture that  reduces risk, builds legitimacy, and sustains long-term partnerships. This essay argues  that positioning cultural diplomacy at the center of Indonesia–China relations will  generate three interlocking benefits: (1) deeper juridical empathy that eases negotiation  and dispute prevention; (2) broader social acceptance for foreign projects that improves  investment outcomes; and (3) institutional innovation that links law, culture, and capital.  Drawing on contemporary scholarship from cultural policy, international investment law,  and international political economy, this analysis proposes a practical, replicable model  for a “cultural-legal-investment” nexus tailored to the Indonesia–China context. 

The theoretical core rests on soft power and institutionalist scholarship. Soft power states’  capacity to attract rather than coerce remains analytically useful because it explains how  cultural attraction changes preferences and creates norms that shape bargaining outcomes  (Nye, as reviewed in contemporary literature). Recent syntheses of cultural diplomacy  scholarship emphasize the discipline’s maturing methods and broadened remit, from  museum loans to collaborative educational programs and artistic co-productions  (Grincheva, 2023). Complementing this, legal pluralism and comparative administrative  law show how procedural familiarity and mutual legal education can reduce transaction  costs in cross-border investment (AsianJIL literature). Combining soft power insights  with legal institutionalism suggests that cultural exchange can do tangible legal work: it  teaches modes of argumentation, reveals administrative logic, and shortens cognitive  distance between regulatory cultures. 

Historically, Indonesia–China relations have oscillated between estrangement and  pragmatic rapprochement; in the last two decades economic ties strengthened  dramatically while cultural initiatives Confucius Institutes, student scholarships, and  cultural festivals became salient instruments of bilateral outreach (Nur Mutia & de 

Archellie, 2023). Scholarly reviews demonstrate that China’s cultural footprint in  Indonesia has produced mixed public effects: it has broadened channels for contact but  has not uniformly shifted societal attitudes (Cogent Arts & Humanities). This mixed  record cautions policymakers: cultural diplomacy is necessary but not sufficient. Its  strategic value increases substantially when linked to legal capacity-building and  transparent investment governance. 

On the investment side, Indonesia’s changing posture terminating older BITs while  negotiating selective frameworks and hosting growing Chinese FDI creates both  opportunity and legal complexity. Empirical studies indicate that China’s BRI and related  outreach have reshaped investment patterns across Southeast Asia, including rising  Chinese projects and capital flows into Indonesia (BRI/FDI studies; ScienceDirect  analyses). Recent reporting and datasets corroborate a surge in Chinese investor interest  in Indonesian manufacturing and industrial parks, driven by tariffs, market access  considerations, and supply-chain reconfiguration. The legal implication is clear: new  flows require calibrated investment protection, dispute-prevention mechanisms, and local  legal capacity to regulate contracts, environmental standards, and labor protections. These  necessities create an opening for cultural diplomacy to play a problem-solving role. 

Cultural diplomacy operates through four pragmatic channels relevant to legal investment synergy. First, educational exchange targeted at legal and regulatory  professionals dual degree programs, exchange fellowships for judges and regulators, and  joint training modules builds shared technical vocabularies and reduces the interpretive  gaps that generate disputes (AsianJIL; comparative law literature). Second, arts and  heritage co-productions in the locales of infrastructure projects help weave local identities  and foreign partners into a visible shared narrative, increasing social licence to operate  and reducing protest risk (International Journal of Cultural Policy; Brill Diplomacy  studies). Third, bilingual centers combining cultural programming with legal clinics the  proposed “Legal-Cultural Centers” facilitate citizen engagement on project design and  rights awareness, thereby preempting litigation rooted in miscommunication. Fourth,  public cultural forums film festivals, museum collaboration, and community arts projects create venues where technical grievances can surface in non-adversarial settings, enabling  mediation and renegotiation before escalation (arts diplomacy literature).

Operationalizing these channels demands institutional design attentive to both legitimacy  and safeguards. First, hybrid centers should be jointly governed and anchored in  Indonesian institutions (universities, provincial cultural offices) to avoid perceptions of  unilateral influence. Evidence from the Confucius Institute experience in Indonesia  indicates that partnerships perceived as locally embedded generate better public outcomes  than externally managed initiatives (Cogent Arts & Humanities; University of Indonesia  case studies). Second, legal exchanges should be reciprocal and framed around shared  public-interest topics environmental law, administrative procedure, and labor compliance rather than doctrinal export. Reciprocity reduces fears of legal imperialism and  strengthens rule-of-law commitments. Third, art diplomacy investments should be linked  to local procurement and heritage conservation clauses within project contracts to convert  symbolic goodwill into concrete local benefits (International Journal of Cultural Policy;  Brill). 

This integrated model yields measurable legal and investment advantages. By reducing  cultural misinterpretation and increasing procedural familiarity among regulators and  investors, the model lowers the incidence of contract ambiguities and regulatory disputes a conclusion supported by studies on intermediaries’ role in FDI (Tandfonline special  issue on FDI). By weaving local communities into visible joint cultural projects, projects  enjoy higher legitimacy and fewer disruptions, improving project completion rates and  host-community outcomes. Finally, by institutionalizing cultural-legal exchanges, both  countries generate a stock of bilingual legal professionals and culturally literate  administrators who can design more durable regulatory frameworks, including context sensitive environmental and social safeguards. 

While Indonesia–China cooperation is often framed through macro-level trade and  infrastructure statistics, the lived realities of landmark projects reveal a more complex  terrain. The Jakarta–Bandung High-Speed Rail, heralded as a symbol of modern  connectivity, experienced recurring delays and spiraling costs. Beyond financial  miscalculations, friction emerged because land acquisition and environmental  assessments were communicated in a way that local communities perceived as opaque  and hurried (Putra & Liu, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 2022). The challenge was not  simply contractual but cultural villagers expected prolonged negotiation rituals and assurances that heritage sites would not be disrupted, while project managers approached  the process through technical efficiency metrics. A comparable tension surfaced in  Morowali’s nickel industrial zone, where Chinese capital transformed the regional  economy yet left local groups feeling peripheral to decision-making and excluded from  long-term planning (Oktaviani, Extractive Industries and Society, 2021). These frictions  demonstrate that legal safeguards alone cannot secure legitimacy; cooperation requires  channels that translate investment objectives into culturally resonant practices.  Embedding cultural diplomacy within investment law would allow administrators to  anticipate sensitivities, establish community dialogue platforms, and pre-empt disputes  before they escalate. 

Risks and limitations must be confronted candidly. Cultural diplomacy can be perceived  as instrumental propaganda if not transparently managed; the Confucius Institute debate  worldwide shows how cultural institutions can become politicized when host-country  concerns are marginalized (MDPI; Cogent Arts & Humanities). Similarly, investment  linkages that neglect local economic inclusion or environmental protection can generate  backlash and undermine cultural gains. The model therefore prioritizes rules of  engagement: host-led governance, transparent funding, community co-design, and  monitoring benchmarks (World Bank comparative gap analyses on IIAs). Also, legal  harmonization driven by cultural proximity cannot substitute for robust legal reform; it is  a complementary strategy that improves outcomes when combined with clear laws,  independent adjudication, and accountable institutions. 

For policymakers and practitioners the following practical agenda emerges. First, launch  pilot Legal-Cultural Centers in two provinces with high Chinese investment one in Java  (manufacturing hub) and one in eastern Indonesia (resource sector) to test different  modalities of cultural-legal outreach and local integration. Second, fund a scholarship  track pairing law students and arts students to incubate interdisciplinary practitioners who  can design participatory ESIAs (environmental and social impact assessments) infused  with cultural sensitivity. Third, require base-level cultural procurement in major bilateral  projects percentages of local creative content, heritage conservation budgets, and  community art commissions to turn symbolic diplomacy into local economic opportunity.  Fourth, negotiate an updated investor-state framework that couples dispute prevention with culturally mediated mediation steps: i.e., mandatory local consultation and cultural expert facilitated mediation before international arbitration. 

The Ministry of Culture should take the lead in designing and implementing cultural  programs ranging from heritage conservation to community arts initiatives while also  ensuring that cultural procurement clauses are enforced in investment projects in close  coordination with local governments. The Ministry of Investment is tasked with  embedding cultural requirements into investment agreements and providing incentives  for investors that support local content and transparency, whereas the Ministry of  Education (covering both primary and higher education) should develop bilingual  curricula, scholarship schemes, and legal-cultural training modules to strengthen capacity  building. The Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Cultural Affairs plays  a central role in harmonizing cross-ministerial policies and monitoring socio-economic  outcomes, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs integrates cultural diplomacy into  bilateral negotiations and facilitates the establishment of Legal-Cultural Centers as  instruments of long-term cooperation. 

In conclusion, conceptualizing cultural diplomacy as a substantive instrument for legal  and investment cooperation offers a fresh, practicable pathway for Indonesia and China.  It reframes culture not as an ephemeral ornament of statecraft but as a procedural lubricant  that smooths legal interactions and enhances investment sustainability. When cultural  programming is thoughtfully co-designed, locally governed, and linked to legal capacity 

building and investment safeguards, it transforms goodwill into governance. This triadic  strategy culture, law, investment does not eliminate power asymmetries or legal complexity, but it provides durable institutional mechanisms to manage them. For a  relationship as consequential as Indonesia–China’s, elevating cultural diplomacy into the  operational architecture of legal and investment cooperation is both prudent and  promising.

 

References 

  • Brill. (2024). The role of artwork in a diplomatic environment: A case study. Diplomacy  & Statecraft, 6(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1163/xxxx 
  • Grincheva, N. (2023). The past and future of cultural diplomacy. International Journal  of Cultural Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2023.2183949 
  • Nur Mutia, R. T., & de Archellie, R. (2023). Reassessing China’s soft power in Indonesia:  A critical overview on China’s cultural soft power. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10,  2178585. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2178585 
  • Hoon, C. Y., & Yeremia, A. E. (2024). China’s cultural diplomacy in Indonesia: The case  of a transnational singing contest. In China’s Cultural Diplomacy in Indonesia (Cambridge University Press chapter). https://www.cambridge.org/core 
  • Grincheva, N. (2022). Contact zones of heritage diplomacy: Museums in the  (post)pandemic reality. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 29(1), 76–93.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141721 
  • MDPI. (2018). Comparative analysis of cultural institutes: Soft power and institutional  perceptions. Sustainability, 10(2), 530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020530 
  • Tandfonline (special issue). (2021). Introduction to special issue on foreign direct  investment and China. Journal of Contemporary Asia / International Business Review. (special issue article) 
  • ScienceDirect. (2025). The impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on foreign direct  investment. Journal of International Economics / Research in International Business and  Finance. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2025.xxxx 
  • SAGE Journals. (2024). The soft power cost of COVID-19 in OECD countries. Journal  of International Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121241304720
  • Asian Journal of International Law. (2014). Comprehensive or BIT by BIT: The ACIA  and Indonesia’s BITs. Asian Journal of International Law. Cambridge University Press.  https://www.cambridge.org/core 
  • Kluwer / Journal of International Arbitration. (2010). A comparative review of the  investor-state arbitration clause in ASEAN–China contexts. Journal of International  Arbitration, 27(4), 2010. 
  • World Bank comparative gap analyses. (2021). Indonesia’s obligations under IIAs vs.  modern investment chapters. World Bank Documents. https://documents.worldbank.org/ 
  • AidData. (2025). China’s expanding investments in Indonesia: Risk and reward. AidData  Policy Brief. https://www.aiddata.org 
  • Reuters. (2025, Aug 14). Chinese investors eyeing Indonesia to avoid US tariffs, tap local  market. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-investors-eyeing indonesia-avoid-us-tariffs-tap-local-market-2025-08-14/