In his address to the inaugural Board of Peace meeting in Washington, D.C., President Prabowo Subianto provided a comprehensive overview of Indonesia’s rising profile in diplomacy. His core argument was simple: Indonesia must embody both the moral imperative for peace, especially regarding humanitarian crises like the situation in Gaza, and pragmatic intentions for engaging in conflict resolution and embracing both morality and pragmatism positions Indonesia at the vantage point of balancing principal concerns and strategic considerations, suggesting that morality and self-interest are intertwined. The address has one overarching aim: to enhance Indonesia’s role as a bulwark against increasing instability in the international affairs sphere, but also acknowledge the daunting challenges the country must navigate.

Gaza appeared to be the core case study in Prabowo’s address. The President reiterated Indonesia’s long-standing commitment to the two-state solution that would allow both Israelis and Palestinians to have a state of their own. However, such an announcement suggests that the issue is far more complex than a simple declaration. The world’s most significant powers have avoided engaging with a framework that secures justice for the Palestinian people. Thus, Indonesia appears to have encountered the challenge of transforming its moral advocacy into actual power in a geopolitical landscape where such humanitarian concerns rarely shape international policy.

Beyond Gaza, Prabowo used his address to position Indonesia as a conduit between Global South nations and the world’s most prominent power structures. He was adamant that peace can never be dictated by a few powerful actors and that dialogue is required to achieve it equitably. Indonesia appears to be following in the footsteps of historical non-aligned nations, such as the ASEAN organisation it co-founded and, even further back, those who attended the Bandung Conference of 1955. Still, it must be acknowledged that the geopolitical landscape has changed profoundly since such initiatives were last in operation. Nationalism is on the rise, longstanding rivalries between significant powers have emerged, and multilateral organisations have declined in popularity. Indonesia’s intentions to act as a mediator in these situations appear to have lost significant influence as it confronts these systemic challenges.

Prabowo also underscored the link Prabowo sought to establish between peace and diplomacy. He contended that peace advances development and stability not only for nations but also for individuals. Consequently, peace enhances Indonesia’s position when negotiating on the international stage regarding issues like trade or investments. Failure to achieve peace, however, diminishes its potential partners in trade and investment. This pragmatic perspective seems to be an extension of Indonesia’s long-standing tradition of approaching issues (whether domestic or foreign) pragmatically. However, it also raises a series of questions regarding navigating existing challenges. 

The global marketplace is increasingly unstable, supply chains have become vulnerable to breakdowns caused by escalating geopolitical tensions, and trading partners are increasingly resorting to protectionism. Indonesia might not derive too much benefit from peace negotiations due to these existing challenges, even with enhanced diplomatic skills that will be harnessed to create more opportunities for peace negotiations.

The solutions Prabowo offered related to his perspective on Indonesia’s emerging moral authority. He stated that Indonesia must convincingly advocate for humanity, justice, and solidarity while anchoring such concerns in its self-interest. The potential for success based on this course of action suggests a possible avenue forward. Avoiding the pitfalls associated with idealism’s (uninformed) approach to complex challenges will be essential for Indonesia. Such an approach will ensure that Indonesia continues to advocate for its moral objectives but does not fail to consider established self-interest. Anchoring moral initiatives that aim to enhance peace not only in Gaza but also in various other regions around the world requires additional steps. 

Strengthening the organisation’s role within ASEAN nations will be essential while collaborating with Global South nations that share similar sentiments regarding peace initiatives and constructively interacting with established world powers (while ensuring that such interactions do not undermine the country’s core values). Other initiatives that will have to be adopted to ensure that the country does not fail at this endeavour include upgrading its diplomatic institutions. Investing in resources and personnel will ensure that Indonesia’s emerging moral authority is not just rhetoric but manifests itself in actions.

Prabowo’s efforts to engage his audience through strategic communication also played a pivotal role in providing depth to his address on the need for peace negotiations in Gaza or other regions where human life is endangered. Prabowo balanced calls for humanitarian efforts with pragmatic concerns, thus avoiding alienating an audience from diverse professional and ideological backgrounds who might have different perspectives on the best course of action for enhancing peace. In an age where calls for moral action tend to fail when uninformed by pragmatic sentiments for reality checks, Prabowo’s messaging approach will not label Indonesia as an idealistic nation unprepared for a pragmatic geopolitical landscape. Strategic communication efforts have contributed to anchoring this vision for the nation; thus, anchoring its moral ambitions will not hinder it from becoming a respected player in a contentious realpolitik arena. In conclusion, Prabowo’s speech called for this sense of collective responsibility. He reiterated Indonesia’s commitment to resources, leadership, and even moral authority towards peace. The lines were drawn. 

Indonesia’s role would be clear. It would be a nation sustaining order, a bridge between worlds, and a champion of justice. The challenges that lie before Prabowo and his vision are, however, daunting. The divisions over Gaza run deep. The imbalanced global structure, Prabides. The volatility of the global economy looms large over Indonesia’s ambitions even within ASEAN. More importantly for the nation, Indonesia cannot ignore its domestic challenges. Inequality in wealth, corruption in government, and disparities in regions all present challenges in need of urgent attention. One cannot expect a country that wishes to bring peace abroad to be in order domestically. Indonesia’s performance in the world of international diplomacy will ultimately be based on how well it upholds the same tenets of justice domestically as it does abroad. The solution lies in perseverance. Indonesia must remain an advocate of justice abroad while ensuring that its democracy at home remains strong and unimpaired. Only then can Prabowo’s vision for peace remain intact. 

In the end, Prabowo’s speech may be viewed as an intention rather than a roadmap for Indonesia’s future in diplomacy. By focusing on the case study of Gaza, increasing Indonesia’s role as a bridge between East and West, linking peace Diplomacy with Development Diplomacy, and seeing moral leadership as a strategic asset, Prabowo provided his audience with a clear vision for Indonesia’s role in the world. The challenges he listed, though painful to confront, are solutions that can be pursued. Whether Indonesia can become the powerful agent of change Prabowo envisions is yet to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Indonesia will play a role in advocating peace in the world.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Rachman, J. (2026, February 18). Why Indonesia is all-in on Trump’s Board of Peace. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/02/18/southeast-asia-trump-board-of-peace-indonesia

Five countries commit troops to Gaza international security force, commander says. (2026, February 19). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/five-countries-commit-troops-gaza-international-security-force-commander-says-2026-02-19/ 

© Eurasia Review