revision 05022026 14:25
SEJARAHID.com The creation of the Board of Peace (BOP), a Washington-backed initiative marketed as a platform for international stability, has unsettled many countries in the Global South. It presents itself as multilateral. But a closer look at who sits inside the club tells a different story.
Almost every member already operates within the U.S. security orbit. Their militaries depend heavily on American weapons, training, intelligence, and coordination.
Only one member does not fit that pattern: Indonesia.
That fact alone raises an uncomfortable question. Is Indonesia joining this board to shape it from within? Or is it being used as a convenient outsider to make a U.S.-designed project look more inclusive than it really is?
An Anomaly Among Allies
Most BOP members have long-standing security ties with Washington.
- Formal treaty allies: Japan, Australia, and South Korea. Their militaries are tightly tied to Washington.
- Special strategic partners: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain may not be bound by treaties, but their militaries depend deeply on U.S. support.
- Indonesia stands apart from all of them. Jakarta has no U.S. defense treaty and no American security guarantee.
That distance has defined Indonesian foreign policy since independence. Joining a club dominated by U.S.-aligned security states risks blurring that distance.
The IDR 17 Trillion Question
Another source of controversy is money.
Indonesia is reported to be committing about USD 1.1 billion—roughly IDR 17 trillion—to the Board of Peace. Officials say this is a voluntary contribution meant for Gaza reconstruction, not a membership fee.
Even so, the size of the number matters.
Indonesia remains a country with deep poverty.
Using the World Bank’s Upper-Middle Income Country poverty line of USD 6.85 per day, well over one hundred million Indonesians live below that threshold. Some estimates place the number closer to two hundred million.
That means Indonesia is home to one of the largest poor populations in the world.
Against this reality, spending IDR 17 trillion on a new international initiative feels jarring. Many citizens will reasonably ask why vast sums are available for global diplomacy while millions at home struggle to pay for food, housing, and basic services.
The Gaza Peace Paradox
The Board of Peace reaches its peak of absurdity when it tries to architect a Palestinian future without a single Palestinian at the table. You cannot ‘build’ a nation for a people you treat as an administrative problem rather than a sovereign partner. This isn’t just a contradiction; it’s a signal that this board is interested in managing a crisis, not delivering justice.
We must ask the President Prabowo: can we even imagine a scenario where a dispute over the North Natuna Sea or the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan was ‘settled’ by an elite council in Washington without Indonesia even being in the room? If we would view such a move as a direct assault on our own sovereignty, then why are we legitimizing a process that does the exact same thing to the Palestinian people?
Normalization and the “Ghost of Boston”
Many observers see Indonesia’s deep involvement in the Board of Peace as part of a broader effort to normalize relations with the United States.
For roughly two decades, President Prabowo Subianto faced U.S. entry restrictions linked to past human rights allegations. One widely cited symbol of that period was his reported inability to attend his son’s graduation in Boston — an episode that later came to be spoken of quietly as the “Ghost of Boston.” It was never an ideology; it was a reminder of exclusion.
That chapter now appears closed. Today, Indonesia is no longer knocking on Washington’s door or asking for permission. Its President is seated firmly inside a U.S.-initiated diplomatic framework, flanked by the powerful states of the West and the Middle East. But in the world of high-stakes diplomacy, there is no such thing as a free seat. The question we must ask is what Indonesia—and its long-standing principles—had to give up in return for that invitation.
Infiltration or Submission?
Indonesia may tell itself that it joined the Board of Peace to influence it from within. That explanation will sound reasonable.
But history offers little comfort.
Large power structures rarely bend around lone participants. More often, the participant bends to the structure.
If Indonesia is not careful, its seat at the table will not strengthen independence. It will quietly redefine what independence means.
