The public discussion regarding the entry of Israeli nationals into Indonesia has resurfaced and triggered emotional reactions in digital spaces. Some criticisms have even escalated into personal accusations, corruption speculation, and narratives suggesting that the state is “allowing” nationals from a country with no diplomatic relations with Indonesia to freely enter, exit, and conduct business. In the context of a rule-of-law state, such issues must be clarified rationally, based on regulations, and proportionally so as not to mislead public opinion.
First, it is important to emphasize that Indonesia officially has no diplomatic relations with Israel, and this condition is precisely the basis for the implementation of the calling visa mechanism, not the opposite. A calling visa is not a form of relaxation, but rather a strict enhanced screening mechanism applied only to nationals from countries assessed to have certain ideological, political, security, or immigration sensitivities. This principle is explicitly regulated in Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 2 of 2024 concerning Procedures for Designating Calling Visa Countries and the Application and Issuance of Visas for Nationals of Calling Visa Countries.
The regulation clearly states that the calling visa is not under the sole authority of the Ministry of Immigration and Corrections, particularly the Directorate General of Immigration, but is instead the result of a collective decision across ministries and agencies. Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No. 2 of 2024 stipulate the formation of a Visa Assessment Coordination Team involving the ministry responsible for legal and human rights affairs, the ministry responsible for foreign affairs, the State Intelligence Agency, the Indonesian National Police, and the Indonesian National Armed Forces. This team evaluates visa applications, assesses applicants’ backgrounds, travel purposes, and potential risks to national security.
Thus, there is no space for personal discretion, let alone individual interest, in the issuance of calling visas. Every decision is a joint recommendation that is institutional and documented in nature. The statement by the Minister of Immigration and Corrections, Mr. Agus Adrianto, that visa issuance is the result of inter-agency coordination meetings, reflects compliance with the applicable legal framework.
The principle that the calling visa is an administrative instrument based on risk assessment, and not an ideological or permanent policy, is also reflected in Indonesia’s policy practice toward other countries. Cameroon, for example, was previously designated as a calling visa country based on immigration and security risk evaluations. However, after a comprehensive inter-agency review, the Indonesian government officially removed Cameroon from the calling visa list in 2023 through Decree of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. M.HH-05.GR.01.06 of 2023, issued on November 23, 2023. The revocation, as officially announced by the Directorate General of Immigration, was based on a reduced level of immigration risk and positive prospects for economic cooperation. This case confirms that calling visa policy is dynamic, adaptive, and data-driven, and subject to periodic evaluation in accordance with national interests.
Second, the assumption that Israeli nationals are “free to come and go and conduct business” in Indonesia must also be clarified. Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 2 of 2024 explicitly limits the types of visas that may be issued, namely only visit visas and limited stay visas for specific purposes such as business discussions, purchasing goods, exhibitions, or meetings with representative offices in Indonesia. All such activities are temporary, specific, and under strict supervision, and must be supported by an Indonesian guarantor, either an individual or a legal entity, who is fully responsible for the applicant’s presence and activities in Indonesian territory.
For nationals from countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Indonesia, the regulation also limits entry points to specific Immigration Checkpoints (TPI), namely Soekarno-Hatta International Airport and I Gusti Ngurah Rai Airport. This restriction demonstrates that the state is applying the principle of maximum precaution, not providing leniency.
In the context of institutional strengthening following the establishment of the Ministry of Immigration and Corrections, this precautionary principle is further reinforced through Minister of Immigration and Corrections Regulation No. 2 of 2025 concerning Immigration Supervision and Administrative Immigration Measures. This regulation stipulates that supervision of foreign nationals is carried out from the pre-arrival stage, during their stay in Indonesia, and post-departure, using a risk-based approach. This provision strengthens the legitimacy of the calling visa as an integral part of a lawful, systematic, and continuous national immigration control system.
Third, allegations of “visa fees” being diverted into officials’ personal pockets are claims that cannot stand without legal evidence. Normatively, all visa fees constitute Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP) which is directly deposited into the state treasury and regularly audited by state financial oversight institutions. There is no legal mechanism that allows calling visa fees to be managed personally, as the entire process is system-based and involves multiple institutions.
From a public policy perspective, the calling visa mechanism is precisely a state instrument to maintain a balance between national interests, humanitarian considerations, and limited economic activities, without requiring formal diplomatic relations. The state does not normalize political relations but continues to manage human mobility selectively and responsibly.
Therefore, public criticism should be directed toward substantive policy evaluation, not the personalization of officials or unsubstantiated assumptions. Policy transparency must continue to be strengthened, but public trust must also be built on a correct understanding of law and state governance.
Ultimately, the calling visa is not a symbol of ideological compromise, but a state control instrument in dealing with a complex global reality. Within the framework of a rule-of-law state, strict regulations, policy evaluation as reflected in the Cameroon case, and strengthened oversight through Ministry of Immigration and Corrections regulations demonstrate that the state is present, functioning, and safeguarding its sovereignty, even in the most sensitive issues.
The author is Special Staff to the Minister of Immigration and Corrections for Communication and Media.
