Indonesia in the Board of Peace: A Complicated Story for Humanity and Economy
By Foreign Affairs Desk
On January 15th, 2026, the global geopolitical landscape shifted when US President Donald Trump announced the creation of the "Board of Peace" via Truth Social. Designed as an international body to oversee the demilitarization and transitional governance of the Gaza Strip, the Board was officially inaugurated a week later during the World Economic Forum. Out of 62 invited nations, 26 signed the Charter—and among names like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE, stood Indonesia.
Representing President Prabowo, Foreign Minister Sugiono framed the decision as a strategic alignment with the two-state solution. But beneath the diplomatic handshakes and the promise of Middle East peace, a much more complex story is unfolding. Is this a genuine step toward Palestinian independence, or is Indonesia being pulled into a high-stakes game of "Trump Gang" realpolitik?
The Red Flags in the Charter
While the Board received a nod from the UN Security Council through Resolution 2803, the international community is deeply divided. Twelve powerhouse nations, including the UK, France, and Germany, have already rejected the invitation. Their primary concern? The Board’s Charter curiously avoids mentioning "Gaza" by name, leading many to believe it is a vehicle designed to rival the United Nations—an organization Trump has frequently criticized.
Then there is the "membership fee." Nations wishing to remain on the Board for more than three years are expected to cough up USD 1 billion (approximately Rp16.7 trillion). To put that in perspective, former Deputy Minister Dino Patti Djalal noted that this sum is equivalent to the taxes paid by two million middle-class Indonesians. While Minister of Finance Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa claims the funds will be diverted from the Ministry of Defense’s hefty Rp187.1 trillion budget, the lack of transparency regarding how this money will actually be used remains a massive point of contention.
Peace on Paper, Violence on the Ground
For many Indonesians, the skepticism isn't just about money—it's about the reality on the ground. Domestic organizations like the Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI) initially lashed out against the move, arguing the Board does not truly support Palestinian freedom.
The data supports this hesitation. While the United States insists the ceasefire holds, reports indicate that Israel violated the peace plan 1,450 times between October 2025 and January 2026. This includes hundreds of instances of civilians being shot, raids on residential areas, and property demolitions. With the US providing over USD 16 billion in direct military aid to Israel—covering 20% of their defense budget—critics wonder how a US-led Board can act as a neutral arbiter of peace.
The Economic Arm-Twist
If the humanitarian and financial costs are so high, why did President Prabowo join? The answer likely lies in the "Trump Factor" and Indonesia’s trade balance.
Foreign policy experts, including Adrianus Harsawaskita, suggest the US is using the Board of Peace to pull Indonesia out of China’s economic orbit. China remains Indonesia’s top export destination, but the US holds the second spot with a trade value of over USD 28 billion. By joining the Board, Indonesia may be "going with the flow" to avoid retaliatory trade tariffs. We’ve seen this play out before: when France rejected the Board, Trump immediately threatened a 200% tariff on French wine and champagne. For Indonesia, joining might be less about Gaza and more about economic survival.
Free and Active, or Just 'Omon-Omon'?
Since the days of Mohammad Hatta, Indonesia has prided itself on a "free and active" (bebas-aktif) foreign policy—staying independent of global power blocs while actively pursuing world peace. President Prabowo reaffirmed this stance at the UN, stating Indonesia remains firmly against colonialism.
However, the "New Gaza" plan proposed by Trump (Point #13 of his 20-point plan) envisions Gaza as a modernized, industrial hub rather than a sovereign state. This business-centric approach stands in stark contrast to the New York Declaration sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, which focuses on immediate sovereignty and has led 20 countries to recognize Palestine in the last two years.
The Indonesian government maintains it can withdraw from the Board if it doesn’t align with Palestinian independence. Following a "fruitful" dialogue with former diplomats and religious leaders, even the MUI and NU have cautiously signaled their support for the move—for now.
But the question remains: Can Indonesia truly push for a two-state solution from inside a room controlled by Donald Trump? Or will our storied history of independent diplomacy be traded for tariff protections? Is this a bold new era of active involvement, or is it just "omon-omon" (all talk) while we follow the leader?