By Tantan Taufik Lubis
Vice Rector, Universitas Jakarta; Founder, OIC Youth Indonesia; Chairman, DPP KNPI
President Prabowo Subianto’s visit to Washington, accompanied by senior ministers and military leadership, comes at a moment of profound transformation in the global order. The inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace (BoP), scheduled for Feb. 19, 2026, represents one of the most unconventional diplomatic experiments since the end of World War II. Initiated by former United States president Donald J. Trump, the BoP has emerged as a radical response to the perceived failures of traditional multilateral diplomacy, particularly in resolving the protracted conflict in Gaza.
Yet behind its promise of efficiency and accelerated reconstruction lies a deeper question: whether the BoP represents a genuine innovation in global peacebuilding or the beginning of a new, transactional geopolitical order centered on personalized leadership rather than institutional legitimacy.
For Indonesia, participation in the BoP marks a high-stakes strategic decision. It signals Jakarta’s ambition to elevate its role from a regional actor to a consequential voice in shaping the future of global peace, particularly in the Muslim world. However, this ambition also exposes Indonesia to financial, constitutional and geopolitical risks that must be carefully managed.
A new model beyond traditional multilateralism
The Board of Peace was formally established following its charter signing at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026. Although initially framed as an extension of United Nations-mandated reconstruction efforts, its governance structure diverges significantly from conventional multilateral organizations.
Unlike the United Nations, where authority is distributed among member states through institutional checks and balances, the BoP adopts a centralized model in which executive authority is concentrated in the office of its chairman. The chairman possesses unilateral authority over membership invitations, strategic direction and operational oversight, including control over key administrative bodies responsible for Gaza’s reconstruction.
This centralized governance structure allows the BoP to operate with unprecedented speed, bypassing the bureaucratic inertia that has often constrained UN peacekeeping missions. However, efficiency comes at the cost of accountability. Without robust institutional safeguards, the risk of politicization and unequal influence becomes unavoidable.
Critics, particularly in Europe, have expressed concern that the BoP represents a shift away from the rules-based international order toward a system shaped more by power, capital and personal leadership. The symbolic transformation of existing peace institutions into operational bases for this new initiative reinforces perceptions that global peace governance may be entering a more transactional phase.
The economic vision of a “New Gaza”
At the heart of the BoP’s mission lies an ambitious reconstruction agenda aimed at transforming Gaza into a modern economic hub. The proposed master plan envisions large-scale infrastructure development, including industrial zones, technology centers and high-value coastal real estate.
Supporters argue that economic transformation is essential for breaking the cycle of poverty and instability that has fueled conflict for decades. By integrating Gaza into global markets, the initiative seeks to create sustainable growth and long-term stability.
However, economic reconstruction without political inclusion risks undermining its own legitimacy. Questions remain regarding land ownership, displacement and the participation of Palestinians in decisions shaping their own future. Without meaningful representation, reconstruction could be perceived not as liberation, but as externally imposed restructuring.
For Indonesia, this represents both a moral and strategic imperative. As the world’s largest Muslim-majority democracy and a consistent supporter of Palestinian self-determination, Indonesia’s participation must be guided by the principle that Palestinians themselves remain central to any peace process.
Indonesia’s voice inside the BoP provides a unique opportunity to advocate for inclusive governance, humanitarian protection and long-term sovereignty, rather than purely economic outcomes.
Regional rivalries and uncertain alliances
The BoP’s future also depends heavily on the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East, particularly the evolving relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Both countries are expected to play significant roles in financing reconstruction, yet their regional rivalry introduces uncertainty into the initiative’s cohesion.
Competing interests in Yemen, Sudan and broader regional influence complicate efforts to maintain unified support. Without sustained cooperation among key regional stakeholders, the financial and political foundations of reconstruction could weaken.
This uncertainty reinforces the importance of balanced participation by non-regional actors such as Indonesia. Unlike major powers with direct strategic interests, Indonesia brings moral credibility rooted in its historical commitment to anti-colonialism and peaceful diplomacy.
Indonesia’s strategic dilemma
Indonesia’s reported commitment of financial resources and potential peacekeeping personnel reflects a desire to ensure that its voice carries real influence within the BoP framework. This approach reflects a pragmatic recognition that influence in global institutions often correlates with material contribution.
However, domestic debate highlights the complexity of this decision. Critics question whether participation in a non-traditional institution aligns with Indonesia’s constitutional mandate to promote world peace based on justice and freedom. Concerns also extend to financial transparency, operational accountability and long-term geopolitical consequences.
These concerns are valid and reflect the maturity of Indonesia’s democratic discourse. Strategic engagement must always be accompanied by clear safeguards, transparency and adherence to constitutional principles.
Yet disengagement carries its own risks. Absence from emerging global platforms may result in diminished influence over decisions that directly affect issues of critical importance to Indonesia, including the future of Palestine.
Leadership in an era of geopolitical transition
President Prabowo’s visit to Washington also carries significant economic dimensions, including efforts to strengthen bilateral trade relations with the United States. Expanded market access and investment cooperation remain essential for Indonesia’s economic resilience amid global uncertainty.
However, the broader significance of this visit extends beyond trade agreements. It represents Indonesia’s attempt to redefine its global role—not merely as an observer, but as an active participant in shaping international outcomes.
This approach reflects a pragmatic understanding of contemporary geopolitics. In an era where global governance structures are evolving, influence often requires engagement rather than isolation.
Indonesia’s challenge lies in maintaining strategic independence while exercising constructive leadership. Participation must never compromise Indonesia’s principled support for justice, sovereignty and self-determination.
The test of Indonesia’s diplomatic maturity
The Board of Peace ultimately represents both an opportunity and a test. It offers the possibility of accelerating reconstruction and stability, but also raises profound questions about legitimacy, accountability and the future of multilateralism.
Indonesia’s participation will be judged not by its presence alone, but by its ability to shape outcomes consistent with its constitutional values and historical commitments.
President Prabowo’s leadership in this moment will help define Indonesia’s position in the emerging global order. If Indonesia can use its influence to ensure inclusive governance, protect Palestinian rights and promote genuine peace, its participation will represent a meaningful contribution to global stability.
But if the initiative becomes detached from principles of justice and sovereignty, Indonesia must be prepared to reassess its engagement.
In this era of geopolitical transition, Indonesia faces a defining choice: whether to remain on the margins of global transformation or step forward as a principled actor shaping the future.
The decision to engage reflects confidence in Indonesia’s ability to lead—not through power alone, but through legitimacy, credibility and moral clarity.
The world is watching. [*]
