Economic consequences of keeping peace in Afghanistan through Indonesian soft power approach

Economic Annals-XXI: Volume 197, Issue (5-6), Pages: 4-9

Citation information:
Rachman, A. (2022). Economic consequences of keeping peace in Afghanistan through Indonesian soft power approach. Economic Annals-XXI, 197(5-6), 4-9. doi:

Arief Rachman
PhD (Strategic Sciences),
Universal War Strategy Study Program,
Indonesian Defense University
(Program Studi Strategi Perang Semesta,
Universitas Pertahanan Indonesia)
FVFJ+G4H, Kawasan IPSC Sentul, Sukahati, Kec. Citeureup, Kabupaten Bogor, Jawa Barat, 16810, Indonesia;

Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Afghanistan,
Kabul, Afghanistan (Kedutaan Besar Republik Indonesia Kabul)

Economic consequences of keeping peace in Afghanistan through Indonesian soft power approach

Abstract. This study aims to determine the steps of the Indonesian Government in realizing peace in Afghanistan with a soft power approach and also economic consequences. This study uses a qualitative descriptive method. Data was obtained utilizing observation and literature study. This research was conducted over two years of 2020 and 2021 on Indonesia’s soft power efforts in Afghanistan. This study involved six policy makers in Indonesian foreign policy, especially soft power and soft diplomacy in Afghanistan. Respondents were asked to assess the various strategies Indonesia had undertaken to use soft power in Afghanistan to maintain world peace due to the rise of terrorism issues. The results show that Indonesia has a few strategies through a soft power approach in maintaining peace in Afghanistan. First, the two heads of state held a meeting. Second, the two KBRI institutions discussed with research institutions, Afghan community leaders, and the Indonesian embassy in Indonesia held a meeting with the Afghan scholar movement and the Peace Council. These three strategies can have a good impact on peace in Afghanistan.

Keywords: Soft Power; Peacebuilding; Board Count; Diplomatic Relations; Economic Consequences

JEL Classіfіcatіon: F00; F02; F50; F51; F54

Acknowledgements and Funding: This research was supported by the College of Naval Technology of Indonesia (STTAL) and Defense University of Indonesia (UNHAN).

Data Availability Statement: All data will be available upon request.



  1. Amadei, B. (2019). Engineering for peace and diplomacy. Sustainability, 11(20), 5646.
  2. Dresse, A., Fischhendler, I., Nielsen, J. Ø., & Zikos, D. (2019). Environmental peacebuilding: Towards a theoretical framework. Cooperation and Conflict, 54(1), 99-119.
  3. Hagström, L., & Nordin, A. H. M. (2020). China’s «politics of harmony» and the quest for soft power in international politics. International Studies Review, 22(3), 507-525.
  4. Haugevik, K., & Neumann, C. B. (2021). Reputation crisis management and the state: Theorising containment as diplomatic mode. European journal of international relations, 27(3), 708-729.
  5. Jakimów, M. (2019). Desecuritisation as a soft power strategy: the Belt and Road Initiative, European fragmentation and China’s normative influence in Central-Eastern Europe. Asia Europe Journal, 17, 369-385.
  6. Karlsrud, J. (2019). From liberal peacebuilding to stabilization and counterterrorism. International Peacekeeping, 26(1), 1-21.
  7. Keating, V. Ch., & Kaczmarska, K. (2019). Conservative soft power: liberal soft power bias and the «hidden» attraction of Russia. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22, 1-27.
  8. Marchenko, O., Sydorova, E., Shuba, V., & Rodina, Yu. (2021). Transformations of contemporary terrorism in view of legal, economic and sociocultural issues. Economic Annals-XXI, 187(1-2), 36-50.
  9. Mathieu, X. (2019). Critical peacebuilding and the dilemma of difference: the stigma of the «local» and the quest for equality. Third World Quarterly, 40(1), 36-52.
  10. Millar, G. (2020). Preserving the everyday: Pre-political agency in peacebuilding theory. Cooperation and Conflict, 55(3), 310-325.
  11. Muhammad, F. (2022). Environmental agreement under the non-interference principle: the case of ASEAN agreement on transboundary haze pollution. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 22, 139-155.
  12. Njeri, S. (2019). Somaliland; the viability of a liberal peacebuilding critique beyond state building, state formation and hybridity. Peacebuilding, 7(1), 37-50.
  13. Oberthür, S. (2019). Hard or soft governance? The EU’s climate and energy policy framework for 2030. Politics and Governance, 7(1), 17-27.
  14. Panja, S., Bag, S., Hao, F., & Roy, B. (2020). A smart contract system for decentralized borda count voting. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(4), 1323-1339.
  15. Pogodda, S. (2020). Revolutions and the liberal peace: Peacebuilding as counterrevolutionary practice? Cooperation and Conflict, 55(3), 347-364.
  16. Terpstra, N. (2020). Statebuilding, legal pluralism, and irregular warfare: assessing the Dutch mission in Kunduz province, Afghanistan. Peacebuilding, 8(3), 300-320.
  17. Von Billerbeck, S., & Tansey, O. (2019). Enabling autocracy? Peacebuilding and post-conflict authoritarianism in the Democratic Republic of Congo. European Journal of International Relations, 25(3), 698-722.
  18. Weigand, F., & Andersson, R. (2019). Institutionalized intervention: The «bunker politics» of international aid in Afghanistan. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 13(4), 503-523.
  19. Wright, K., Scott, M., & Bunce, M. (2020). Soft power, hard news: how journalists at state-funded transnational media legitimize their work. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(4), 607-631.
  20. Zhang, Ch., & Wu, R. (2019). Battlefield of global ranking: How do power rivalries shape soft power index building? Global Media and China, 4(2), 179-202.

Received 11.12.2021
Received in revised form 12.01.2022
Accepted 24.01.2022
Available online 22.06.2022