When Donald Trump unveiled the Board of Peace (BOP) in Davos, the announcement immediately sparked debate in diplomatic circles. The query was inevitable: Why did Indonesia and Vietnam, two countries long related to an independent and non-aligned foreign policy, quickly turn out to be founding members?
The answer lies not in alignment, but in strategy. For Jakarta and Hanoi, joining the Peace Council never meant following Washington’s example. It was about stepping into the room early, shaping the agenda from the within and ensuring that one principle was not weakened: Palestinian statehood through a two-state solution.
Indonesia: Guarding Palestinian sovereignty from inside
Indonesia’s decision was made clear by Foreign Minister Sugiono, stating that the move got here directly from President Prabowo Subianto. The reason was easy but calculated.
Indonesia didn’t want the problem of Palestinian independence to stay a symbolic talking point in world forums that rarely produce concrete results. By joining the Peace Council from its inception, Jakarta placed itself in a mechanism of influence quite than as a distant observer.
From Indonesia’s perspective, participation was a type of frontline diplomacy, engaging directly where initial frameworks, mandates and priorities are being developed. The goal is to be certain that any peace architecture emerging from the BOP stays anchored in internationally recognized principles: Palestinian self-determination, territorial sovereignty, and a viable two-state solution.
Rather than weakening Indonesia’s long-held position, the move reflects a shift towards more tangible engagement. Jakarta is betting that having a presence on the decision-making table provides more influence than making statements from outside it.
Vietnam: Linking the UN Framework to a New Peace Initiative
Vietnam’s approach carries a distinct but complementary logic. Hanoi sees the Peace Council as a platform that might help operationalize existing international obligations, especially those related to United Nations resolutions.
Vietnamese leader Tô Lâm emphasized that participation within the BOP is in keeping with Vietnam’s support for UN Security Council resolutions on the Gaza Strip and post-conflict reconstruction. Rather than compete with multilateral institutions, Vietnam sees this initiative as a practical extension of them.
At the identical time, Hanoi is using this moment to strengthen its comprehensive strategic partnership with the United States. In Vietnam’s case, the calculus is two-tiered: contributing to global peace efforts while protecting national interests inside an evolving international order.
This balancing act reflects Vietnam’s growing confidence as a middle power that may engage in recent initiatives without abandoning multilateral norms.
Common mission: two states, one moral line
Despite their different diplomatic styles, Indonesia and Vietnam converge on one red line: Palestinian independence is non-negotiable.
Both governments stressed that lasting peace cannot exist with no sovereign Palestinian state living alongside Israel in an environment of security and mutual recognition. Their presence on the Peace Council is meant to act as an ethical counterweight, ensuring that humanitarian principles are usually not overshadowed by political expediency.
Instead of passive participants, Jakarta and Hanoi are positioning themselves as guardians of intentions, states determined to make sure the initiative’s compliance with international law and human dignity.
In a forum shaped by the influence of great powers, the voice of Southeast Asia adds balance. Indonesia and Vietnam are usually not there to support any leader’s vision, but to be certain that peace efforts proceed to be based on justice, legitimacy and long-term stability.
Why this matters for Southeast Asia
The early entry of Indonesia and Vietnam into the Peace Council signals a broader shift in ASEAN diplomacy. Regional authorities are not any longer content to react once decisions have been made, but move upstream, shaping conversations before outcomes are determined.
This isn’t an equation. It’s a strategic presence. By entering the method at an early stage, each countries aim to stop the peace initiative from straying from its core humanitarian mission.
In doing so, they highlight Southeast Asia’s growing role as a rules-based, proactive actor in global diplomacy that engages with power without sacrificing values.
