Amid the euphoria of globalization—when people, capital, and ideas move across national borders at an unprecedented speed—one old reality still persists: the international world has never truly been “peaceful.” It remains competitive, and even tends to be anarchic. There is no single authority capable of guaranteeing the security of all nations.
This view is not new. John Mearsheimer, one of the leading thinkers of realism, emphasized that in such a system, every state ultimately has to protect itself. Sovereignty is not merely a symbol, but the result of a state’s ability to control what happens within its territory—including who enters and leaves.
In the context of Indonesia, the Asta Cita agenda of Prabowo Subianto’s administration places sovereignty as the foundation. But the question is: how is that sovereignty maintained in the era of global mobility?
The answer lies at one point that is often considered technical, but is actually highly political: the border.
Borders as an Arena of Power
In the logic of realism, borders are not merely lines on a map. They are arenas where the state maintains control over its living space. Every visa policy, every passport inspection, is a concrete manifestation of state power.
This is where John Mearsheimer’s ideas become relevant. States not only survive, but also strive to maximize their power. In the context of immigration, this means the state must be able to choose: who strengthens it and who potentially weakens it.
The problem is that globalization often encourages states to open themselves as widely as possible. Tourism, investment, and labor mobility are considered engines of growth. Indonesia is no exception.
However, openness without control is vulnerability. We have seen how abuse of residence permits, illegal labor, and unmonitored economic activities can grow within the gaps of a weak system.
Threats That Are Not Always Visible
Threats to the state today rarely appear in the form of military invasion. They more often come silently—through transnational crime networks, economic infiltration, or even the penetration of values and ideas.
At this point, the perspective of Samuel P. Huntington becomes important. He reminded us that conflicts in the modern world are not only about material interests, but also about identity and civilization. Uncontrolled human flows are not merely matters of statistics, but also have the potential to affect social cohesion.
Indonesia, with its internal diversity, has its own sensitivity toward this issue. Therefore, border control must not only be security-based, but also take into account social stability and national identity.
An Unavoidable Dilemma
A country like Indonesia cannot choose between being completely “open” or completely “closed.” Both carry risks. Being too closed will hinder economic growth. Being too open will weaken control.
Within the framework of realism, the solution is not choosing one over the other, but managing both strategically. The state must be open—but with conditions. It must accept—but with selection.
The principle of selective policy becomes key here. Not merely as a slogan, but as a concrete mechanism to ensure that every foreigner entering the country truly provides added value.
Technology: The New Weapon at the Border
In the past, border control depended on people and physical documents. Today, it has shifted toward data and algorithms. Advanced countries have used biometrics, artificial intelligence, and data integration to identify risks even before someone arrives at the airport.
Indonesia has begun moving in this direction. However, the challenge is not only technological adoption, but also how to ensure that the data truly becomes an instrument of state power.
In the logic of realism, whoever controls information possesses an advantage. And in the context of immigration, human mobility data is one of the most strategic forms of information.
Protecting, Not Obstructing
Ultimately, border control is not about building high walls. It is about building a system capable of protecting without obstructing.
Asta Cita speaks about sovereignty, but sovereignty in this era cannot be maintained through rhetoric alone. It requires concrete instruments, one of which is immigration that is strong, intelligent, and adaptive.
In a world that remains anarchic, as John Mearsheimer reminded us, a careless state will be left behind. And in a world that is becoming increasingly complex in terms of identity, as Samuel P. Huntington warned, a state that neglects its social cohesion will face risks from within.
Thus, guarding the nation’s gates is no longer merely a routine bureaucratic task. It is a strategy for survival—and at the same time, a way to ensure that Indonesia is not only open, but also sovereign.
