President Prabowo Subianto is facing a mounting political crisis as his administration grapples with an Indonesia’s Board of Peace dilemma: Prabowo caught between domestic backlash and US ties. The tension centers on Indonesia’s decision to join the Board of Peace (BoP), a body initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump to oversee post-conflict reconstruction in Gaza. While the move was initially presented as a strategic elevation of Indonesia’s global influence, it has instead triggered a wave of public indignation and political instability.
When Prabowo accepted the invitation on Jan 22, he framed the participation as a vital step toward achieving lasting world peace and asserting Indonesia’s role as a “middle power” on the international stage. However, that diplomatic ambition has collided with a volatile geopolitical climate in the Middle East, leaving the president to navigate a narrow path between maintaining essential security and economic ties with Washington and satisfying a domestic constituency deeply critical of U.S. Foreign policy in the region.
The situation reached a breaking point following the recent US-Israeli war on Iran and a tragic series of events in Lebanon. The deaths of three Indonesian peacekeepers in late March served as a catalyst for public anger, transforming a policy debate into a national grievance. For many Indonesians, the BoP no longer represents a path to peace, but rather a symbolic alignment with a U.S. Administration whose allies are viewed as responsible for regional instability.
A Shift in Public Sentiment
The disconnect between the palace and the public is now reflected in hard data. Recent polling indicates that a majority of Indonesians are opposed to the BoP membership. A joint survey conducted by Indikator Politik Indonesia, the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI), and Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting (SMRC), released on Apr 2, found that 50.9 per cent of more than 1,000 respondents disagreed with the decision to join the board.
Only 33.8 per cent of those surveyed expressed support, while the remainder remained neutral. This represents a marginal decline from an earlier study conducted by Media Survey Nasional (Median) between Feb 10 and 14, which showed 50.4 per cent opposition and 34.8 per cent support. Analysts suggest these figures may actually understate the current level of hostility, as the Mar 12 to 31 polling window captured some responses before the deaths of Indonesian personnel in Lebanon were fully processed by the public.
The volatility of this sentiment highlights the precarious nature of Prabowo’s “middle power” strategy. By attempting to bridge the gap between Western diplomacy and Global South advocacy, the administration has found itself vulnerable to the actions of the very partners it seeks to engage. As Teuku Rezasyah, an international relations lecturer at Indonesia’s President University, position it: “The Board of Peace has become the Board of Problems.”
The Lebanon Tragedy and the UN Findings
The domestic backlash is not merely ideological; it is rooted in the loss of life. The deaths of three Indonesian peacekeepers in Lebanon last month have turned the BoP membership into a symbol of misplaced trust. According to United Nations investigations, the casualties occurred under two distinct and violent circumstances.
On Mar 29, a projectile fired from an Israeli tank resulted in the death of one peacekeeper. This event directly linked the casualties to the military actions of a primary U.S. Ally, fueling the argument that Indonesia’s participation in a U.S.-led peace board is contradictory to its national interests and its historical support for Palestinian independence.
The violence continued on Mar 30, when two more peacekeepers were killed by an improvised explosive device. The UN attributed this attack most likely to Hezbollah. While the second incident involves a non-state actor, the cumulative effect has been a surge in demands from politicians—including members of Prabowo’s own coalition—to reassess and potentially withdraw from the BoP.
Summary of BoP Public Opinion Trends
| Survey Period | Opposed (%) | Support (%) | Key Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10–14 | 50.4% | 34.8% | Pre-Iran conflict escalation |
| Mar 12–31 | 50.9% | 33.8% | During/Post-Lebanon casualties |
The Strategic Tightrope: Washington vs. Jakarta
For President Prabowo, the dilemma is a classic conflict of interest. On one side is the necessity of the U.S. Relationship. The United States remains a critical partner for Indonesia in terms of military modernization, investment, and regional security in the Indo-Pacific. Withdrawing from the BoP could be perceived as a snub to the Trump administration, potentially jeopardizing diplomatic leverage or bilateral agreements.
On the other side is the internal political cost. Indonesia has one of the world’s largest Muslim populations, and support for Palestinian sovereignty is a powerful domestic political driver. If Prabowo is seen as too closely aligned with a U.S.-led initiative that fails to produce tangible peace or, worse, coincides with the death of Indonesian soldiers, he risks alienating his base and empowering political rivals.
The “middle power” ambition requires a level of autonomy that the BoP membership may currently be hindering. By joining a body designed by the U.S. To manage Gaza, Indonesia has effectively entered a framework where the U.S. Sets the terms. This has led critics to question whether Indonesia is acting as a mediator or simply as a legitimizing participant in a Western-centric peace process.
What Comes Next
The administration now faces a critical window to either redefine Indonesia’s role within the BoP or pivot toward a more independent stance. The pressure from within the ruling coalition suggests that the status quo is unsustainable. Any move to withdraw would be a significant signal of a shift in foreign policy, prioritizing domestic stability and regional solidarity over a strategic partnership with the U.S.
The next official checkpoint for this dilemma will likely be the upcoming diplomatic reviews and coalition meetings where the “reassessment” of the BoP membership is expected to be formally discussed. The administration’s response to these internal pressures will determine whether Prabowo can successfully maintain his global aspirations without sacrificing his domestic legitimacy.
We invite our readers to share their perspectives on Indonesia’s role in global peace initiatives in the comments below.
Worth a look
