By James Kallman, the CEO of Moores Rowland Indonesia and an Indonesia nationalist
As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Nearly two decades ago, there was an international debate about bird flu blood samples. Today, it’s about digital data samples. Yet the question of fairness for Indonesia is much the same. Was it fair then for Indonesia to donate blood samples for developing H5N1 avian influenza vaccines that could then be sold to us at unaffordable prices? Is it now fair that the US is pressing Indonesia for a more relaxed attitude toward IT companies when our digital activity helps create products that generate billions of dollars in economic value through AI? As when Indonesia was asked to freely supply H5N1 blood samples and research results in 2007, there is now legitimate interest in ensuring that we also benefit from the value of sharing the data in our collective digital footprint.
During the debate over H5N1 virus research sharing, Indonesia wanted developing countries to receive a fair share of the benefits derived from the resources they provided. The government argued that while Indonesian virus samples were helping foreign pharmaceutical companies develop vaccines, the nation should enjoy affordable access to the resulting products. Indonesia also questioned if countries providing an essential resource should remain passive suppliers while others captured most of the commercial value. Whether one agreed with Jakarta's position or not, the controversy ultimately contributed to wide discussions on fairer access and benefit-sharing in global health.
Today, artificial intelligence presents a comparable policy challenge. Instead of biological samples, the current critical resource is digital data. Instead of vaccines, the end product is increasingly powerful AI systems capable of generating substantial commercial value and potentially affecting the lives of everyone on the planet. As Indonesia represents one of the richest sources of linguistic and cultural data available to developers of large language models (LLMs), data sharing deserves similar strategic consideration as our virus research once did.
While the comparison is not exactly parallel, the underlying principle remains relevant. Like when the international search for an avian flu vaccine required multi-national cooperation, AI training relies on enormous quantities of data from many countries, not solely Indonesia. The dilemma now is how does each country lend its support but also protect its interests.
This is not an argument for digital protectionism. Indonesia benefits significantly from foreign technology companies, international investment and open digital markets. Restrictive policies that isolate the country from global innovation would almost certainly prove counterproductive. The objective should instead be reciprocity.
That could mean encouraging greater investment in Indonesian AI research, expanding partnerships between global technology companies and Indonesian universities, strengthening domestic AI capabilities, developing local talent and ensuring that regulatory frameworks reflect Indonesia's long-term economic interests rather than simply accommodating those of larger economies.
Unlike nickel or coal, Indonesia's digital resources are not extracted from the ground. They are created every day by millions of us communicating, learning, conducting business and participating in digital life. Moreover, data differs fundamentally from biological materials in that it can be copied, reused and combined without being depleted.
As AI becomes increasingly central to global competitiveness, Indonesia will need to decide whether its digital data should be treated merely as an input for external technology companies or as a strategic national asset whose value should also contribute to domestic development.
Unlike when Indonesia did stop sharing bird flu samples with the World Health Organization, Indonesia need not seek to impede innovation in AI, nor make it a contest between us and the United States. The two countries share important economic and technological interests, and continued cooperation is essential.
The debate over virus-sharing nearly twenty years ago asked whether developing countries should receive a fair share of the benefits derived from resources they helped provide. The AI era raises a similar question in a different context.
Collectively, our digital resources are one of the country's most valuable economic assets. Our data is helping shape the future of AI. It is entirely reasonable to expect that we also benefit from the future it creates.
