Indonesia’s recent announcement regarding the potential deployment of up to 8,000 troops to a proposed multinational Gaza stabilisation force, as part of Donald Trump’s Board of Peace (BoP), signals a dramatic shift in Jakarta’s long-standing foreign policy. The decision, confirmed by President Prabowo Subianto’s government on February 10, raises critical questions about Indonesia’s diplomatic direction amid increasing geopolitical volatility.
Historically, Indonesia has maintained a foreign policy characterized by a commitment to neutrality, and multilateralism. Though, this engagement with the BoP, particularly under a figure as polarizing as Trump, appears to suggest a departure from its traditional stance. Analysts are questioning whether Indonesia is genuinely advancing its national interests or if its foreign policy is being unduly influenced by external agendas.
The implications of Indonesia’s troop deployment are complex, especially given Gaza’s status as one of the most volatile conflict zones globally. The potential for humanitarian and security challenges in the region poses significant risks, particularly without a comprehensive multilateral mandate. This raises concerns about Indonesia’s ability to maintain neutrality in a politically charged environment.
Revisiting Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Principles
One of the most pressing issues is the impact on Indonesia’s “Free and Active” foreign policy doctrine, which has been a cornerstone of its diplomatic identity since the mid-20th century. This doctrine emphasizes independence in foreign relations and active engagement driven by national priorities. Engaging with a framework closely associated with Trump could inadvertently legitimize unilateral approaches that conflict with established international norms.
this shift risks reducing Indonesia’s stature to that of a supporter of a U.S.-centric foreign policy, potentially undermining its leverage with other global actors such as China and Russia. Indonesia’s historical role as a mediator in Southeast Asian affairs has relied on its credibility as a neutral player, a reputation that may be compromised by perceived alignment with great-power agendas.
The Palestine Paradox
Indonesia’s constitutional commitment to opposing colonialism and advocating for international justice introduces additional moral and constitutional complexities into its participation in the BoP. Trump’s previous policies, particularly the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, have drawn widespread criticism and could alienate Indonesia from its domestic constituency, which largely supports Palestinian statehood.
If the Board of Peace progresses towards regional normalisation without solid assurances of Palestinian sovereignty, Indonesia might be seen as endorsing an externally imposed process. This perception could severely damage Indonesia’s moral standing in international forums such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations.
Strategic and Economic Considerations
The logistics of deploying 8,000 personnel is no little endeavor. Such a commitment represents a full brigade, likely involving some of Indonesia’s most capable military units. This diversion of elite forces to the Middle East comes at a time when tensions in the North Natuna Sea and broader Indo-Pacific dynamics are intensifying, raising concerns about national defense priorities and military readiness.
the financial implications of sustaining a large troop contingent in a heavily militarized area like Gaza necessitate substantial logistical support. Even with international assistance, the hidden costs of such operations often revert to national budgets, placing additional strain on Indonesia’s economy, which requires investment in domestic growth and defense modernization.
The lack of substantial public discourse regarding this military commitment too highlights a concerning trend towards elite-driven foreign policy decisions, potentially detaching them from the broader national consensus.
Potential Risks and Future Implications
Indonesia’s close association with Trump’s Board of Peace carries long-term reputational risks, especially in the context of the polarized nature of U.S. Politics. Should future administrations distance themselves from Trump-era initiatives, Indonesia could face diplomatic fallout without its own agency in the matter. Foreign policy frameworks tied to individual leaders often prove unstable, complicating Indonesia’s ability to navigate future geopolitical landscapes.
As the situation evolves, the critical question remains whether Indonesia will uphold its historical commitment to independent and balanced diplomacy or compromise its principles in pursuit of increased geopolitical visibility. The stakes are high, not just for Indonesia’s international standing but also for the foundational principles that have guided its foreign policy for decades.
In the coming months, Indonesia’s actions and decisions will be closely monitored, with implications that could resonate beyond Southeast Asia. The country’s engagement with the BoP will be a litmus test for its diplomatic integrity and the resilience of its long-standing policy framework.
As this situation develops, public discourse surrounding these decisions will be crucial. Feedback and engagement from citizens and stakeholders will assist shape a foreign policy that reflects Indonesia’s values and interests.
