Board of Peace: Diplomatic Trash and Indonesia’s Anti-Colonial Hypocrisy

The Board of Peace did not emerge from a vacuum. It was born out of a crisis of legitimacy within the U.S. led global order. Following a series of unilateral moves by Washington including aggression toward Venezuela and open tensions with the mechanisms of the United Nations, the idea surfaced to construct an “alternative” structure, one claimed to be more effective than the UN. Under Donald Trump, this initiative was polished as a diplomatic innovation: a peace forum operating outside traditional multilateral frameworks. From the outset, its foundation was saturated with hegemonic interests. This was not an attempt to build a more just world, but an effort to manage global conflicts within the orbit of American power.

Indonesia has now chosen to sit at this so-called Board of Peace. The name sounds noble. It suggests a neutral space committed to ending war and building global justice. But strip away the rhetoric, and the forum is morally and politically compromised from the start. Why? Because Israel is a member. And one of the missions being advanced is the disarmament of Hamas without addressing the root causes of occupation, apartheid, and decades long colonization. That is not peace. That is the reorganization of domination.

The Board of Peace did not arise from traditions of popular liberation movements. It was shaped within the diplomatic architecture of the Trump era, an era in which “peace” became a political branding project. Under Trump, normalization with Israel was marketed as diplomatic success while the occupation of Palestine continued uninterrupted. Illegal settlements expanded. The blockade remained. The imbalance of power persisted. The formula is simple: Build an international stage, invite states to sit together, talk about stability, but never touch the colonial structure itself. If Israel remains a legitimate member of the forum while the focus is directed toward disarming one side without demanding an end to occupation and militarization, then the forum is not an instrument of justice. It is an instrument for pacifying resistance. Disarming the occupied while leaving the machinery of occupation intact is not neutrality. It is a disguised alignment.

The Board of Peace presents itself as a mediator. But what kind of mediator ignores power relations? In every colonial conflict, there is a colonizer and there is the colonized. There is a party that controls territory, resources, and borders; and there is a party living under that control. If an international forum speaks only of “violence on both sides” without naming the colonial structure, it is washing its hands of political reality. Peace without decolonization is an illusion. Peace without ending military expansion is cosmetic. By joining without openly challenging the architecture of this forum, Indonesia risks becoming part of its political legitimation.

The Indonesian government’s diplomatic decision to participate in the Board of Peace has not gone unchallenged. Across public discussions, the move has drawn sharp criticism. Many question the government’s moral consistency: how can it speak of Palestinian liberation while sitting in a forum that includes Israel and advances a one sided disarmament agenda? The backlash is not surprising. For decades, Indonesians have been among the most vocal supporters of Palestinian independence. Solidarity with Palestine has become a powerful element of the country’s collective political consciousness. Massive demonstrations, fundraising campaigns, and public statements all testify to a living anti-colonial awareness within society, even if that awareness abruptly fades when the issue of Papua is raised. When Papuans speak of self determination, the response is rarely solidarity. More often, it is accusations of separatism. When Papuan activists are arrested or demonstrations restricted, the majority remains silent. In Papua, we speak of territorial integrity. In Palestine, we speak of the right to self determination. This contradiction is rarely confronted honestly. If we truly believe that colonialism is a crime, that principle cannot stop at foreign borders. It must be courageous enough to confront injustices at home. Otherwise, solidarity becomes political identity rather than ethical commitment.

States can easily condemn foreign occupation. It is diplomatically safe and domestically popular. But they grow defensive when the same concepts are directed inward. Here lies the problem: a fake anti-colonialism. Indonesia appears in international forums carrying the banner of Palestinian liberation. Yet when it joins the Board of Peace (a body that includes Israel and prioritizes disarmament without dismantling occupation) its moral position becomes blurred. That hypocrisy is exposed when confronted with the idea of self-determination for the Papuan people. The anti-colonial language Indonesia projects internationally collapses when faced with the question of Papuan independence. Throughout history, hundreds perhaps thousands have been victims of human rights violations for expressing aspirations for self determination in Papua. Killings, exile, imprisonment as political detainees: these have repeatedly been the state’s response to those advocating separation. In relation to Papua, Indonesia functions as a colonizing power. Is this truly about liberation? Or about geopolitical positioning and international image? If the Board of Peace does not clearly prioritize ending occupation as its central commitment, then it is merely a tool for stabilizing conflict, not resolving it.

If we are serious about liberation, our principles must be consistent. Colonialism remains colonialism, whether carried out by Israel or by any state against a territory demanding self determination. Militarization remains militarization, whether wrapped in the language of national security or not. Repression remains repression, even when practiced by a state that was once colonized. Otherwise, these are just slogans. Peace that does not dismantle power is stabilization. Solidarity that stops at borders is nationalism. Anti-imperialism without internal critique is hypocrisy. If Indonesia truly wishes to stand on the side of liberation, it must confront its own contradictions, not merely seek recognition at diplomatic tables designed from the outset to preserve inequality. Otherwise, the Board of Peace is nothing more than another stage for normalizing a world that has never been truly at peace. And without structural justice, it remains diplomatic trash wrapped in moral language.