Opinion: Challenging Hashim's Role on the Climate Summit Diplomacy Stage

The Climate Summit (COP) 31 will occur in Turkey in November, serving as a platform for climate diplomacy involving countries like Indonesia. The Indonesian Government's position on climate diplomacy was reportedly weakened by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (KESDM) decision regarding auction results for Natuna D-Alpha oil and gas work areas. This decision benefited the company related to Hashim Djojohadikusumo, the Presidential Special Envoy for Climate Change.
The weakening of Indonesia's diplomatic position is suggested by two potential causes: the D-Alpha oil and gas block has a CO2 content of up to around 72%, posing a risk of carbon release, potentially trapping the country in a fossil-based economy through infrastructure development. A second cause involves public ethics, as Hashim Djojohadikusumo is associated with the oil and gas business causing emissions, which contrasts with his role as a climate envoy.
This situation is framed as a nadir point for Indonesia's climate diplomacy, with previous associations, such as including fossil fuel lobbyists in COP30 delegations, being cited as context. Furthermore, statements made by Hashim regarding phasing down rather than phasing out fossil fuels were met with government actions, although the transition to renewable energy faces hurdles due to existing electricity supply structures.

* The Climate Summit (COP) 31 will take place in November in Turkey.
* The Indonesian Government weakened its climate diplomacy position through the KESDM decision regarding auction results for Natuna D-Alpha oil and gas work areas.
* The decision won the company related to Hashim Djojohadikusumo, the Presidential Special Envoy for Climate Change.
* The D-Alpha oil and gas block has a CO2 content of up to around 72%.
* The author posits that this situation weakens Indonesia's diplomatic position on the international stage from a climate diplomacy perspective.
* The fossil-based economic lock is linked to the development and maintenance of physical, economic, and political infrastructure.
* Hashim Djojohadikusumo stated at the National Leadership Meeting (Rapimnas) that Indonesia will only do phase-down, not phase-out, of fossil fuels.
* The government announced the cancellation of the early retirement plan for the Cirebon-1 coal-fired power plant.

The narrative structure suggests a tension between public policy driven by technocratic concerns (green investment, carbon trading) and the absence or marginalization of public ethics in climate diplomacy. The core concern is that associating a high-profile climate diplomat with fossil fuel interests creates a regime of truth where economic activity supersedes ethical considerations, as evidenced by the historical context surrounding COP30 awards and subsequent statements on fossil fuel phase-down. The shift from public ethics discourse to technocratic discourse effectively neutralizes moral critique by framing environmental action purely in terms of measurable investments, thus allowing associations like Hashim’s to be normalized.
This dynamic points toward a power operation where knowledge—specifically the discourse of green investment—is used to substitute for public ethical deliberation. The resulting normalization reflects a historical pattern where public ethics were removed from high-level policymaking debates. Resistance, as suggested by Foucault, involves reasserting public ethics through questioning this established knowledge regime. The challenge is not just about Hashim's personal association but about the structural power that allows such associations to become accepted without public ethical scrutiny.
What are the implications if the choice remains framed as either diplomatic engagement or extractive business? Does accepting the status quo simply allow the dominance of technocratic discourse, where economic realities dictate climate policy, to remain unchallenged? How can the public reintroduce a framework for evaluating these connections beyond mere economic outcomes?