President Prabowo Subianto’s decision to sign the Council of Peace (BoP) Charter on January 22, 2026 in Davos, Switzerland, triggered a wave of diplomatic discourse across the country.
While pursuing world peace is a noble constitutional mandate, the shortage of transparency about Indonesia’s role on this Trump-initiated body raises fundamental questions. The current debate shouldn’t be about rejecting peace, but in regards to the strategic costs and potential sacrifice of Indonesia’s long-standing foreign policy principles.
Through his personal Instagram account, senior diplomat Dino Patti Djalal highlighted several “yellow lights” which have grow to be central to policy evaluation. The BoP Charter reportedly lacks specific reference to Palestinian statehood or the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This omission is especially striking on condition that the initiative was originally presented as a strategic framework for regional stability.
Costly membership: strategic and financial issues
One of probably the most discussed points is the financial commitment of the organization. Foreign Minister Sugiono clarified on January 27, 2026 that Indonesia’s accession doesn’t involve a compulsory fee; invited countries are entitled to a few years of membership freed from charge.
However, Indonesia’s announced intention to make a voluntary contribution of $1 billion stays under intense scrutiny.
This staggering amount is similar to twice the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ annual budget for 2026. Analysts note that such voluntary contributions far exceed Indonesia’s annual commitments to regional bodies resembling ASEAN.
While the federal government maintains that the funds are intended for the reconstruction of Gaza, the size of the commitment has led to demands for extreme transparency. Public skepticism stays high as as to whether this commitment actually serves national interests or merely “buys” a seat on the exclusive diplomatic table.
The Trump-Netanyahu axis and silence on Gaza
Another point of contention is the structural integrity of the Peace Council, because the organization operates under Donald Trump’s indefinite control.
Under the statute, all decisions and programs have to be approved by the president, making a hierarchy that critics say undermines the principle of sovereign equality. The energetic participation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu further complicates Indonesia’s position within the group.
During the BoP launch in Davos, observers noted a glaring lack of empathy for the victims in Gaza. The official narrative has focused largely on Donald Trump’s leadership fairly than addressing what the United Nations has classified as a significant humanitarian crisis.
The absence of the word “freedom” in reference to the Palestinian people suggests a shift toward business-centric solutions fairly than true political independence.
Security threats: peacekeepers or property guards?
Indonesia’s potential involvement within the International Stabilization Force (ISF) within the Gaza Strip poses a serious risk to the military’s international fame.
Such a task could potentially conflict with the basic mission of the Indonesian state as enshrined within the preamble to the 1945 structure, which requires the country to “to take part in the establishment of a world order based on freedom, everlasting peace and social justice.”
There is legitimate concern that Indonesian troops may very well be used to underwrite industrial reconstruction projects fairly than to perform traditional peacekeeping duties.
The vision of “New Gaza” presented at Davos seemed more focused on futuristic real estate development than on socio-political revitalization. Indonesia faces the challenge of ensuring that its participation doesn’t inadvertently support the marginalization of Palestinian aspirations in favor of business interests.
People’s mandate: maintaining a free and energetic doctrine
Ultimately, Indonesia’s foreign policy is a mirrored image of the nation’s collective conscience and its constitutional mandate. The “free and energetic” doctrine states that Indonesia cannot grow to be an instrument of any world power, especially regarding Palestinian independence.
If the Peace Council doesn’t display a transparent commitment to a two-state solution, pressure on Indonesia to reassess its membership is prone to increase.
Diplomatic credibility is predicated on moral consistency and the power to navigate global alliances without losing national identity. Indonesian public opinion expects its leaders to stay loyal to the 1945 structure, which calls for the abolition of colonialism since it is “incompatible with humanity and justice.”
The fundamental challenge stays to balance global influence with the unwavering integrity of foreign policy principles.
