President Prabowo Subianto’s government announced on February 10 that Indonesia is preparing to send up to 8,000 troops to a proposed multinational Gaza stabilization force under President Donald Trump’s so-called Commission on Peace (BoP). The unit’s proposal forms part of Jakarta’s broader decision to join the BoP Framework, an initiative initiated and promoted by President Trump. Taken together, these measures signal a significant shift in Indonesia’s longstanding foreign policy posture. As geopolitical instability intensifies, Jakarta seems committed to a project shaped around a single, deeply polarized political figure. This decision raises a fundamental question: Will Indonesia advance its national interests and diplomatic credibility, or will it allow its foreign policy direction to be shaped by external agendas?
Geopolitics is not an arena for symbolic access to power, but a disciplined calculation of national interests and the credibility of sovereignty. Indonesia’s decision to engage with the BoP looks less like a carefully calibrated strategic choice and more like a reactive impulse that risks weakening the philosophical foundations of diplomacy built over decades. Indonesia’s international influence has historically relied on strategic equidistance rather than personal alignment with controversial leaders.
There is a growing sense that Jakarta is at risk of acting out of geopolitical urgency. But the effort Indonesia has chosen to support is led by a man known for transactional diplomacy and disregard for international agreements. Its influence extends far beyond Middle East peace efforts. At stake is Indonesia’s reputation as an independent stabilizing actor in global diplomacy.
The risks become even more serious if Indonesia proceeds with military deployment under the BoP framework. Gaza is not a traditional peacekeeping battlefield. It is one of the world’s most volatile and politically contested conflict environments, where humanitarian imperatives and demanding security objectives frequently collide. Deploying thousands of troops into such a theater without a comprehensive multilateral mandate risks drawing Indonesia into a conflict environment in which it will be difficult to maintain neutrality.
Collapse of the “free and active” principle
The most serious concern is the gradual erosion of Indonesia’s “free and active” foreign policy principles, which have been the intellectual pillars of Indonesian diplomacy since the Juanda Declaration and the Bandung Conference. Indonesia has historically positioned itself as a mediator rather than a follower of a personal foreign policy.
By joining an institution with close ties to Donald Trump, Jakarta risks legitimizing a unilateral approach that often contradicts established international norms. “Free” diplomacy means independence, and “active” diplomacy means engagement based on national priorities rather than external pressures.
Indonesia also risks being reduced to a symbolic support for a US-centric diplomatic outlook. If Jakarta moves too far into this trajectory, it could weaken its influence with other key actors, including China, Russia, and ASEAN partners. Indonesia’s leadership in Southeast Asia has relied on its credibility as a neutral stabilizing force. Its credibility may be undermined if it is seen as participating in the security policies of major powers.
Indonesia’s respected track record in UN peacekeeping operations has historically been based on internationally recognized neutrality under the UN chain of command. Joining a BoP framework that sits outside the established multilateral system risks moving Indonesia from a neutral arbiter to a participant in a political security architecture shaped beyond globally accepted peacekeeping norms.
Even more troubling is the precedent this sets. Indonesia risks undermining the coherence of its diplomatic identity if foreign policy principles become negotiable in exchange for economic or strategic commitments. Our constitutional commitment to promoting world peace and social justice depends on maintaining policy independence.
Palestine paradox
Indonesia’s participation in the BoP also creates visible moral and constitutional tensions. Indonesia’s constitution clearly rejects all forms of colonialism and emphasizes international justice. Participation in initiatives led by policy makers historically biased in favor of Israel creates contradictions that are difficult to reconcile.
President Trump’s record in the region remains controversial. His decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem changed decades of diplomatic consensus and sparked widespread criticism across the Muslim world. For Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation and a consistent supporter of a Palestinian state, engaging with this framework carries significant political sensitivities.
If the peace commission moves forward with regional normalization without firm guarantees of Palestinian sovereignty, Indonesia risks becoming embroiled in a process widely seen as externally imposed. This would contradict domestic public opinion and weaken Indonesia’s moral leadership in forums such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations.
Aspects of military deployment further deepen these concerns. The context of the Gaza conflict goes beyond Israeli and Palestinian actors to include broader regional power networks, including the so-called “axis of resistance.” The Indonesian military could be seen by armed groups as an extension of the Western-backed security structure, increasing the risk that peacekeepers could become operational targets.
Strategic and economic trade-offs
Sending 8,000 people overseas is no small decision. For Indonesia, it represents a complete brigade comprised of perhaps some of its most capable units. At a time of heightened tensions in the North Natuna Sea and heightened competition in the Indo-Pacific, diverting elite forces to the Middle East risks diluting focus on core national defense priorities and extending military readiness across far-flung theaters.
Financial aspects are equally important. Maintaining thousands of troops in a devastated and heavily militarized enclave requires a massive logistics infrastructure. Even if projects receive international support, hidden costs often find their way back into national budgets. At a time when Indonesia’s domestic economy needs a boost and its defense sector looks to modernize, allocating significant resources to expeditionary missions with uncertain strategic benefits requires serious parliamentary oversight.
Diplomatic engagement must deliver tangible benefits to the people, without placing new burdens on already bloated national budgets. Without clearly defined security or economic interests, the risk of deploying troops looks like an expensive geopolitical gamble. Indonesia could rely on security arrangements shaped by shifting U.S. domestic political priorities, creating commitments that may prove less reliable over time.
Equally concerning is the lack of active public debate surrounding this decision. Large-scale foreign military involvement requires democratic oversight. Without transparency, foreign policy risks becoming an elite-driven policy divorced from national consensus.
Reputational risk and strategic myopia
Indonesia’s close association with initiatives so strongly associated with Donald Trump poses long-term reputational risks. American politics remains deeply polarized. If a future administration distances itself from Trump-era efforts, Indonesia could face diplomatic exposure without necessity.
Foreign policy frameworks built around highly personalized leadership often prove unstable. Indonesia’s diplomatic partnerships have traditionally been based on multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and ASEAN, giving them permanence precisely because they are not tied to individual leaders.
If the peace committee becomes politically divisive or develops into a coercive security measure, Indonesia may have a hard time leaving without reputational damage. Participation therefore concentrates diplomatic risks rather than diversifying them.
In a rapidly multipolar world, Indonesia does not need shortcuts to global influence. Its credibility has historically been built on independence, balance, and principled diplomacy. The central question is whether Indonesia will maintain its traditions or compromise it in pursuit of geopolitical visibility and proximity to power. Indonesia should be given a far more independent role than that.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
