Indonesia’s Gaza gamble | Gaza
Indonesia Prepares to Deploy Troops to Multinational Gaza Stabilization Force
JAKARTA, Indonesia — On February 10, President Prabowo Subianto’s administration announced plans to send up to 8,000 troops to a proposed multinational stabilization force in Gaza. This initiative is part of Indonesia’s broader commitment to the Board of Peace (BoP), a diplomacy framework promoted by former President Donald Trump. The move marks a notable shift in Indonesia’s long-standing foreign policy, which has traditionally favored a neutral positioning on the global stage.
As geopolitical tensions rise, Indonesia’s decision to support an initiative closely associated with a controversial political figure is raising questions about the potential impact on its national interests and diplomatic standing. Observers note that Indonesia, which has maintained a historical stance of strategic equidistance, risks compromising the principles of its foreign policy in favor of external agendas.
Engagement with the BoP raises concerns about Jakarta’s diplomatic credibility. The initiative is associated with a leader known for transactional diplomacy, which deviates from the cooperative approaches that have characterized Indonesia’s international relations for decades.
The challenges of deploying troops in Gaza—a region marked by intense conflict—further complicate Indonesia’s potential involvement. Unlike conventional peacekeeping missions, the Gaza environment presents unique volatility, where humanitarian efforts and security objectives often clash. Without a broad multilateral mandate, Indonesia may struggle to maintain a posture of neutrality in a deeply polarized conflict.
Erosion of the ‘Free and Active’ Doctrine
Critics express concern over the potential erosion of Indonesia’s “Free and Active” foreign policy doctrine, a pivotal aspect of its diplomatic identity since the mid-20th century. This doctrine emphasizes Indonesia’s role as a mediator rather than a participant aligned with individual leaders.
By engaging with an initiative strongly linked to Trump, Indonesia risks endorsing unilateral diplomatic strategies that may contradict established international norms. The idea of “free” diplomacy suggests independence in decision-making, while “active” implies engagement based on national interests rather than yielding to external pressures.
Moreover, Indonesia may inadvertently align itself with a U.S.-centric foreign policy, potentially weakening its influence with other global stakeholders such as China and Russia. The nation’s leadership role in Southeast Asia has relied on its credibility as a neutral party; participating in a contentious security framework could jeopardize that standing.
Historically, Indonesia’s respected role in United Nations peacekeeping missions has rested on its commitment to international neutrality. Involvement in a framework outside established multilateral arrangements could blur the lines between impartiality and partisanship.
The Palestine Paradox
Participation in the BoP generates significant moral and constitutional dilemmas for Indonesia. The country’s constitution explicitly condemns all forms of colonialism and advocates for international justice. Involvement in a program linked to policies perceived as favoring Israel could create a contradiction with Indonesia’s core values.
Trump’s controversial record in the Middle East, particularly his decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, drew widespread criticism from Muslim-majority countries, including Indonesia. For a nation with a longstanding support of Palestinian statehood, aligning itself with the BoP carries heightened political sensitivity.
If the BoP progresses without guarantees for Palestinian sovereignty, Indonesia risks being perceived as complicit in a process seen as imposed from outside. Such a stance could conflict with domestic public sentiment and undermine Indonesia’s moral standing in international forums.
The potential deployment of troops further exacerbates these tensions. In Gaza, where various regional actors are involved, Indonesian forces might be viewed as part of a Western-backed security strategy, increasing the risk to personnel safety.
Strategic and Economic Trade-offs
The decision to deploy 8,000 troops represents a significant military commitment for Indonesia, potentially diverting important resources from national defense priorities amid rising tensions in the region. The diversion of elite military units to the Middle East raises concerns about the country’s overall military readiness.
Furthermore, the logistical demands of maintaining a large contingent in a conflict-ridden area could impose substantial financial burdens on Indonesia’s economy. Given the current need for economic stimulus and defense modernization, the allocation of resources to a mission with uncertain benefits warrants thorough parliamentary review.
It is crucial that any diplomatic engagement yields tangible advantages for the Indonesian public, rather than new financial burdens on the state. Without clearly delineated security or economic returns, such a military commitment could be perceived as a costly gamble.
Reputational Risks
Indonesia’s association with an initiative closely tied to Trump poses long-term reputational risks, particularly given the polarizing nature of U.S. politics. Should future administrations disavow Trump-era policies, Indonesia might bear the diplomatic fallout.
Foreign policy frameworks centered on individual leadership often lack stability. Indonesia has traditionally prospered through partnerships grounded in multilateral platforms, which provide longevity because they are not linked to specific leaders.
If the BoP becomes politically contentious or evolves into an instrument of coercive security, Indonesia could find it challenging to disengage without damaging its international reputation.
In a rapidly evolving multipolar landscape, Indonesia need not seek shortcuts to amplify its global influence. The nation’s historical credibility is rooted in its commitment to independence and principled diplomacy. The key question remains whether Indonesia will preserve this tradition or relinquish it in pursuit of greater geopolitical visibility.
