Board of Peace and Indonesia's Diplomatic Strategy
Public concern has emerged regarding the existence of the Board of Peace (BoP), which some have termed the “Trump Peace Council”, particularly regarding the direction of Indonesia’s foreign policy, the independence of its diplomacy, decision-making transparency, and the strategic benefits of Indonesia’s involvement in this international forum.
Such questions are understandable whenever government takes diplomatic steps involving global geopolitical dynamics. However, viewing the Board of Peace solely as one country’s political project risks oversimplifying the far more complex reality of international diplomacy.
Global peace fundamentally never emerges suddenly. It is the result of a lengthy process involving negotiation, political strategy, and the meeting of national interests between countries. Behind the humanitarian narratives often presented in various international forums, there are always power dynamics that shape the direction of conflict resolution.
The BoP emerges at precisely the intersection between the idealism of peace and geopolitical reality. The institution was established in early 2026 in Davos, Switzerland, with the primary mandate of overseeing Gaza stabilisation following the ceasefire. Its role extends beyond security oversight to include coordination of regional reconstruction, economic recovery, and the formation of transitional civil governance.
Consequently, the BoP is not merely a diplomatic discussion forum. It represents a space for strategic decision-making that touches various important aspects, from security to post-conflict governance. In many international conflicts, the post-war phase becomes the most crucial period, determining whether a region can recover stably or slide back into a new cycle of conflict.
Under the leadership of President Prabowo Subianto, Indonesia continues to affirm its support for the two-state solution as a realistic and widely recognised path to peace in global diplomacy. Participation in the BoP enables Indonesia to bring this position directly into the space of international policy-making. This means support for Palestine is not only conveyed through political statements or moral positions, but also through participation in a process that could determine Gaza’s future.
This also aligns with the principle of Indonesia’s foreign policy long known as “free and active”. This principle is often misunderstood as a passive neutral stance. Rather, the meaning of “active” emphasises Indonesia’s involvement in various efforts to create international peace and stability. By joining forums such as the BoP, Indonesia practises a form of active neutrality. Indonesia does not align with particular power blocs, but remains present in strategic spaces to influence policy direction. In global diplomacy practice, nations not seated at the negotiating table often become mere observers of decisions made by others.
Domestically, criticism of Indonesia’s involvement in the Board of Peace has also emerged from various quarters. The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), for instance, through its advisory in early March 2026 urged the government to withdraw Indonesia’s membership from the forum. This criticism demonstrates that debate over Indonesia’s diplomatic strategy regarding the Palestinian issue is indeed complex.
Nevertheless, Indonesia can withdraw its BoP membership at any time, as affirmed by President Prabowo Subianto. Moreover, the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East remains highly dynamic with escalating regional conflict. Such flexibility is important in international diplomacy so that every decision can remain adaptable to developments in the global situation.
Indonesia’s presence in this forum also carries several strategic implications. First, Indonesia’s diplomatic position has potential to be further strengthened as an important actor in global peace diplomacy. Second, Indonesia’s image as a democratic, moderate, and peace-oriented Muslim-majority nation can be further reinforced in the eyes of the international community.
Furthermore, involvement in the post-conflict reconstruction process opens opportunities for wider humanitarian cooperation, development, and economic diplomacy. In other words, participation in the BoP concerns not only Gaza, but also how Indonesia positions itself in an ever-changing global order.
Of course, the existence of the BoP is not free from criticism and debate. Concerns about the potential dominance of major powers or the forum’s relationship with existing multilateral mechanisms, such as the United Nations, are issues requiring critical examination.
However, it is precisely in this context that the presence of a country like Indonesia becomes important. Indonesia holds a relatively unique position to bring the perspective of developing nations and the Muslim world into the international decision-making process. This presence enables Indonesia to serve as a balancer whilst reminding that peace processes must remain grounded in principles of justice and sovereignty.
Ultimately, Indonesia’s decision to join the BoP reflects a strategic choice. Indonesia can become part of a process shaping the future of a conflict region, or remain outside offering only commentary from a distance. In an era of geopolitical transformation, such choices determine Indonesia’s influence on global developments.