LONDON – Calls are growing for Indonesia to reassess its participation in the Board of Peace (BoP), an initiative spearheaded by former U.S. President Donald Trump, following recent escalations in tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran. The debate centers on whether Indonesia’s continued involvement compromises its long-held principle of “bebas aktif” – an independent and active foreign policy – and its commitment to upholding international peace and sovereignty. A member of the Indonesian Parliament, TB Hasanuddin, has publicly urged the government to withdraw from the BoP, citing concerns that the organization tacitly approves of military aggression against other nations.
Hasanuddin’s call reflects a broader sentiment gaining traction within Indonesia, fueled by perceptions that the BoP has failed to prevent or condemn recent military actions. The organization, conceived during the Trump administration, aimed to foster peace through a coalition of nations willing to contribute to a global security force. However, critics argue that its structure and perceived alignment with U.S. And Israeli foreign policy objectives undermine its neutrality and effectiveness. The recent escalation involving attacks attributed to Israel in Iran, and the subsequent response, have intensified scrutiny of the BoP’s role and Indonesia’s position within it.
The principle of “bebas aktif,” enshrined in the Indonesian constitution, dictates that the nation should play a proactive role in promoting world peace while remaining independent in its foreign policy decisions. Hasanuddin argues that Indonesia’s participation in the BoP, particularly given its perceived inaction regarding recent conflicts, directly contradicts this foundational principle. He contends that true commitment to peace requires opposing acts of aggression, not passively accepting them through association with an organization seen as enabling such actions. This stance is echoed by growing public concern, with petitions circulating online calling for Indonesia’s withdrawal from the BoP, as reported by several Indonesian news outlets.
Concerns Over Perceived Bias and Sovereignty
A key concern raised by Hasanuddin and others is the perception that the BoP’s structure and agenda are heavily influenced by the United States and Israel. This perceived bias, they argue, prevents Indonesia from taking a firm stance against actions that violate international law and undermine the sovereignty of other nations. The politician specifically pointed to the lack of a strong condemnation from the BoP regarding the recent attacks, which he believes signals a tacit acceptance of the use of force. This silence, he asserts, weakens Indonesia’s credibility on the international stage and erodes its commitment to upholding the principles of non-interference and peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Hasanuddin expressed worry that continued participation in the BoP could entangle Indonesia in potentially destabilizing geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East. He highlighted the potential for Indonesia’s involvement in the BoP’s International Security Force (ISF) to draw the nation into regional conflicts, potentially jeopardizing its national interests and security. Reports indicate that Hamas has already voiced opposition to the presence of foreign forces in Gaza, including potential contributions from Indonesia, adding another layer of complexity to the situation. This potential for rejection from key stakeholders underscores the risks associated with maintaining a presence within the BoP, according to Hasanuddin.
Financial Implications and Domestic Opposition
Beyond the geopolitical concerns, Hasanuddin also raised questions about the financial implications of Indonesia’s participation in the BoP. He cautioned that allocating resources to the ISF could strain the nation’s fiscal capacity, particularly given the current economic uncertainties. He argued that in a time of economic pressure, the government should prioritize domestic needs and exercise greater selectivity in its international commitments. The allocation of funds to a potentially controversial and ineffective organization like the BoP, he believes, represents a misallocation of resources that could be better utilized to address pressing domestic challenges.
The call for withdrawal from the BoP is not limited to political figures. The Indonesian Muslim Council (MUI) has also voiced its support for Indonesia’s exit from the organization, further amplifying the growing domestic pressure on the government. This broad-based opposition suggests a significant level of public concern regarding the BoP and its potential implications for Indonesia’s foreign policy and national interests. The MUI’s statement underscores the moral and ethical dimensions of the debate, framing the issue as a matter of upholding justice and defending the rights of oppressed nations.
The Board of Peace: Origins and Objectives
The Board of Peace was established under the Trump administration with the stated goal of fostering global peace and security through a coalition of nations committed to combating terrorism and extremism. The initiative envisioned the creation of an International Security Force (ISF) composed of troops from participating countries, intended to respond to global security threats and maintain stability in conflict zones. However, the BoP faced criticism from the outset, with some observers questioning its effectiveness and its potential to exacerbate existing geopolitical tensions. The organization’s structure and funding mechanisms also drew scrutiny, with concerns raised about its transparency and accountability.
The initiative’s reliance on voluntary contributions from member states also presented challenges, as evidenced by reports that Israel had refused to pay its assessed contributions, as reported in February 2026. This financial instability further fueled doubts about the BoP’s long-term viability and its ability to achieve its stated objectives. The lack of consistent financial support from key member states raises questions about the organization’s commitment to its own mission and its ability to effectively address global security challenges.
Indonesia’s “Bebas Aktif” Policy and Regional Role
Indonesia’s foreign policy has historically been guided by the principle of “bebas aktif,” which emphasizes independence, non-alignment, and proactive engagement in international affairs. This policy has shaped Indonesia’s role as a regional leader and a vocal advocate for peaceful resolution of conflicts. Indonesia has consistently championed multilateralism and sought to strengthen regional cooperation through organizations like ASEAN. However, its participation in the BoP has raised questions about whether it is fully adhering to the principles of “bebas aktif,” particularly given the organization’s perceived alignment with specific geopolitical interests.
Maintaining a consistent and principled foreign policy is crucial for Indonesia’s credibility and influence on the international stage. Any deviation from its core principles could undermine its standing as a trusted mediator and a champion of peace. The current debate surrounding the BoP highlights the challenges of balancing Indonesia’s commitment to international cooperation with its responsibility to uphold its own national interests and values. The decision on whether to remain in the BoP will undoubtedly have significant implications for Indonesia’s foreign policy trajectory and its role in the global arena.
As the situation in the Middle East continues to evolve, the Indonesian government faces increasing pressure to clarify its position on the BoP and to demonstrate its commitment to the principles of “bebas aktif.” The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining whether Indonesia will choose to remain within the organization or to pursue a more independent course of action. The government’s decision will likely be influenced by a complex interplay of domestic political considerations, regional dynamics, and international pressures.
The next key development to watch will be the Indonesian government’s official response to the growing calls for withdrawal from the BoP. Analysts anticipate a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs outlining the government’s position and its future plans regarding the organization. This statement is expected to provide clarity on whether Indonesia intends to remain a member of the BoP, to seek reforms within the organization, or to pursue a complete withdrawal. Readers are encouraged to follow updates from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and reputable international news sources for the latest developments on this evolving situation.