In late November 2025, massive floods and landslides struck the provinces of Aceh, North Sumatra and West Sumatra in Indonesia.
The disaster, triggered by heavy monsoon rains, massive deforestation and a rare tropical cyclone, has left a grim legacy: hundreds dead, many missing, and millions affected.
Yet although foreign governments and humanitarian organizations have offered assistance, the central government has so far declined to accept international aid. Officials say they still “can manage” the crisis using domestic capabilities.
This decision has drawn strong criticism, and many argue it is not just questionable — but potentially reckless.
“We Can Handle It Ourselves”
Leading voices in the government have asserted that accepting foreign aid for the disaster is currently unnecessary.
According to Antara News, when asked about international assistance, the state secretary and presidential spokesperson said that Indonesia remains capable of meeting survivors’ needs through domestic resources.
Even though offers of help have come from “friendly countries,” the government says it will not open that option — at least for now.
Part of the rationale stems from a legal and bureaucratic perspective. The government has refrained from declaring a national disaster, treating the catastrophe as a regional calamity.
According to critics, that choice restricts access to certain centralized funds, streamlined relief mechanisms, and coordinated national-level structures.
A National Tragedy, Not A Regional Mishap
The magnitude of the disaster belies the government’s framing. According to official data, as of early December 2025 more than 3.2 million people have been affected — with hundreds of thousands displaced, and thousands injured.
The confirmed death toll has climbed sharply, with over 800 people killed and hundreds still missing in the worst-hit provinces.
Infrastructure has collapsed in many areas: entire villages submerged or destroyed, roads and bridges washed away, communication networks down, and access to basic needs like food, fuel, and clean water severely disrupted.
In many ways, this disaster fits the profile of a major national crisis, but the government still refuse to acknowledge it as a national disaster.
The widespread loss of life, mass displacement, disrupted infrastructure, and overwhelmed local resources indicate that the impact spreads across provinces and demographic groups — more characteristic of a disaster of national scale than one that can be handled locally.
Why the Decision Is Questionable
First, rejecting outside help which is giving more resource limits the capacity for a fast, comprehensive response.
With roads and bridges destroyed, many areas remain isolated — meaning local resources alone may not suffice to deliver food, medicine, clean water, and other aid to survivors. Reports already indicate critical shortages of fuel and clean water in some regions.
Second, not accepting international assistance closes off access to specialized aid that goes beyond what domestic agencies may quickly mobilize.
International NGOs often bring in medical teams, large quantities of relief supplies, advanced water-filtration systems, and logistical support — capabilities that might ease or accelerate rescue and recovery, and relieve pressure on overstretched local institutions.
Third, delaying or rejecting foreign aid may come with an implicit human cost. Given the massive scale of the disaster, the margin for error is dangerously thin.
In crisis situations where every hour counts, slower or inadequate delivery of assistance can mean preventable suffering and even death — among those missing, injured, or stranded in isolated zones.
Fourth, the refusal could reflect a concerning prioritization of image or “self-reliance” over humanitarian need.
By framing the disaster as manageable with domestic resources — despite mounting evidence to the contrary — the government may be prioritizing institutional pride or bureaucratic optics at the expense of swift, effective aid.
Critics
Not everyone accepts the government’s reasoning. Several civil society groups and human-rights organizations have called on the government to declare a national emergency.
One prominent group which is the Amnesty argued that such a declaration is necessary to facilitate a structured entry point for both domestic and foreign humanitarian aid.
Other critics point out that the scale of damage — including destroyed infrastructure, isolated communities, and overwhelmed local capacities — clearly exceeds what regional governments or local disaster management agencies can handle alone.
Given that many offers of assistance have already come from abroad, rejecting them seems increasingly hard to justify — not only in moral terms, but in practical ones.
National Pride Shouldn’t Cost Lives
The refusal of international aid by the Indonesian government in the face of the 2025 Sumatra floods and landslides is more than a political posture — it is a gamble with human lives.
While the official position emphasizes self-sufficiency and domestic capacity, the scale of the disaster, the collapse of infrastructure, and the urgent humanitarian needs paint a much grimmer picture.
Accepting international assistance does not signify weakness: on the contrary, it could mean saving lives, easing suffering, and restoring hope for millions of people whose homes, communities, and futures have been washed away.
As calls from civil society grow louder — asking for a national emergency declaration and aid access — it becomes obvious: pride and bureaucratic formality should not stand in the way of humanity.
