President Prabowo Subianto’s authorities mentioned on February 10 that Indonesia is getting ready to deploy as much as 8,000 troops to a proposed multinational Gaza stabilisation drive below Donald Trump’s so-called Board of Peace (BoP). The troop proposal types a part of Jakarta’s broader choice to take part within the BoP framework, an initiative conceived and pushed by Trump. Collectively, these steps sign a major shift in Indonesia’s longstanding international coverage posture. At a time of intensifying geopolitical volatility, Jakarta seems to be committing itself to a mission formed round a single, deeply polarising political determine. The choice raises a basic query: is Indonesia advancing its nationwide pursuits and diplomatic credibility, or permitting its international coverage course to be formed by an exterior agenda?
Geopolitics is just not a theatre for symbolic proximity to energy however a disciplined calculation of nationwide curiosity and sovereign credibility. Indonesia’s choice to interact with the BoP seems much less like a rigorously calibrated strategic selection and extra like a reactive impulse that dangers weakening the philosophical foundations of its diplomacy, constructed over many years. Indonesia’s worldwide affect has traditionally rested on strategic equidistance relatively than private alignment with controversial leaders.
There’s a rising sense that Jakarta dangers performing out of geopolitical urgency. But the initiative Indonesia has chosen to help is led by a determine identified for transactional diplomacy and disrespect for worldwide consensus. The implications lengthen properly past Center East peace initiatives. What’s at stake is Indonesia’s fame as an impartial stabilising actor in world diplomacy.
If Indonesia proceeds with troop deployment below the BoP framework, the dangers grow to be much more acute. Gaza is just not a traditional peacekeeping theatre. It is among the most risky and politically contested battle environments on this planet, the place humanitarian imperatives and exhausting safety targets often collide. Deploying hundreds of troops into such an area with out an inclusive multilateral mandate dangers drawing Indonesia right into a battle atmosphere the place neutrality could be troublesome to maintain.
The erosion of the ‘Free and Lively’ doctrine
Probably the most critical concern is the gradual erosion of Indonesia’s “Free and Lively” international coverage doctrine, the mental spine of its diplomacy because the Djuanda Declaration and the Bandung Convention. Indonesia has traditionally positioned itself as a mediator relatively than a follower of personalised diplomatic agendas.
By taking part in an establishment carefully recognized with Donald Trump, Jakarta dangers legitimising unilateral approaches that usually battle with established worldwide norms. “Free” diplomacy implies independence, and “energetic” diplomacy implies engagement pushed by nationwide priorities relatively than exterior stress.
Indonesia additionally dangers being diminished to a symbolic endorsement of a United States-centred international coverage outlook. If Jakarta drifts too far into this orbit, its leverage with different main actors, together with China, Russia and ASEAN companions, may weaken. Indonesia’s management in Southeast Asia has trusted its credibility as a impartial stabilising drive. That credibility could erode whether it is seen as taking part in great-power safety agendas.
Indonesia’s revered file in United Nations peacekeeping has traditionally rested on internationally recognised neutrality below UN command constructions. Participation in a BoP framework, which sits outdoors established multilateral techniques, dangers shifting Indonesia from impartial arbiter to participant in a political safety structure formed past globally recognised peacekeeping norms.
Extra troubling is the precedent this units. If international coverage ideas grow to be negotiable in trade for financial or strategic guarantees, Indonesia dangers undermining the coherence of its diplomatic identification. Its constitutional dedication to selling world peace and social justice is dependent upon preserving coverage independence.
The Palestine paradox
Indonesia’s participation within the BoP additionally creates a visual ethical and constitutional rigidity. The Indonesian structure explicitly rejects all types of colonialism and emphasises worldwide justice. Participation in an initiative led by the architect of insurance policies traditionally skewed in Israel’s favour creates a contradiction that’s troublesome to reconcile.
Trump’s file within the area stays controversial. His choice to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem altered many years of diplomatic consensus and drew widespread criticism throughout the Muslim world. For Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation and a constant supporter of Palestinian statehood, affiliation with this framework carries important political sensitivity.
If the Board of Peace advances regional normalisation with out agency ensures of Palestinian sovereignty, Indonesia dangers being linked to a course of extensively perceived as externally imposed. This is able to battle with home public sentiment and weaken Indonesia’s ethical management in boards such because the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations.
The troop deployment dimension deepens these issues. The Gaza battle panorama extends past Israeli and Palestinian actors to incorporate broader regional energy networks, together with the so-called “Axis of Resistance”. Indonesian forces could possibly be perceived by militant teams as extensions of Western-backed safety preparations, rising the chance that peacekeeping troops grow to be operational targets.
Strategic and financial trade-offs
Deploying 8,000 personnel abroad is just not a marginal choice. For Indonesia, it represents a full brigade probably composed of a few of its most succesful models. At a time of rising tensions within the North Natuna Sea and intensifying Indo-Pacific competitors, diverting elite forces to the Center East dangers diluting give attention to core nationwide defence priorities and stretching navy readiness throughout distant theatres.
The monetary dimension is equally important. Sustaining hundreds of troops in a devastated and closely militarised enclave would require in depth logistical infrastructure. Even when operations obtain worldwide help, hidden prices usually revert to nationwide budgets. At a second when Indonesia’s home economic system requires stimulus and its defence sector seeks modernisation, allocating substantial assets to an expeditionary mission with unsure strategic returns warrants critical parliamentary scrutiny.
Diplomatic engagement should ship tangible dividends to the general public, not impose new burdens on an already stretched state finances. With out clearly outlined safety or financial advantages, troop deployment dangers seem as an costly geopolitical gamble. Indonesia may discover itself depending on safety preparations formed by shifting US home political priorities, creating commitments which will show unreliable over time.
The absence of sturdy public debate surrounding this choice is equally regarding. Massive-scale abroad navy commitments require democratic oversight. With out transparency, international coverage dangers turning into an elite-driven train indifferent from nationwide consensus.
Reputational danger and strategic myopia
Indonesia’s shut affiliation with an initiative so strongly linked to Donald Trump introduces long-term reputational danger. US politics stays deeply polarised. If future administrations distance themselves from Trump-era initiatives, Indonesia may face diplomatic publicity by no necessity of its personal.
Overseas coverage frameworks constructed round extremely personalised management usually show unstable. Indonesia’s diplomatic partnerships have historically been grounded in multilateral establishments such because the United Nations and ASEAN, which offer sturdiness exactly as a result of they don’t seem to be tied to particular person leaders.
If the Board of Peace turns into politically contested or evolves right into a coercive safety instrument, Indonesia could wrestle to disengage with out reputational harm. Participation, subsequently, concentrates diplomatic danger relatively than diversifying it.
In a quickly multipolar world, Indonesia doesn’t require shortcuts to world affect. Its credibility has traditionally been constructed on independence, stability and principled diplomacy. The central query is whether or not Indonesia will protect that custom or compromise it in pursuit of geopolitical visibility and proximity to energy. Indonesia deserves a much more impartial position than that.
The views expressed on this article are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially mirror Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
