According to Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Indonesia’s decision to join the United States-initiated Board of Peace (BOP) has triggered public debate amid escalating tensions in the Iran–Israel conflict. UGM reports that the move has raised questions about the consistency of Indonesia’s long-standing “free and active” foreign policy principle. Professor Dafri Agussalim of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL UGM) stated that both the conflict and Indonesia’s BOP membership carry broad implications for the country’s global standing and international perceptions of its neutrality. He argued that political decisions taken during open conflict can shape how Indonesia’s role is viewed on the world stage.
Professor Dafri explained that Indonesia’s decision to join the BOP coincided with military attacks in the conflict, a timing he said has created perceptions of partiality. In remarks cited by UGM, he warned that this situation could be seen as Indonesia entering “a trap set by Trump and Israel” through its BOP membership, followed by Israel’s attack. He described this sequence as “a serious blow to our foreign policy,” suggesting that Indonesia’s traditional non-aligned posture is now under scrutiny. UGM notes that these comments were made during a discussion on March 2, 2026, as the implications of the decision were being publicly assessed.
How are Indonesia’s foreign policy and neutrality being questioned?
According to UGM’s report, Professor Dafri believes Indonesia’s position as a non-aligned country is increasingly being questioned at the international level. He noted that, in conflict resolution theory, a credible mediator must maintain clear distance from the parties involved in order to be trusted by both sides. He stressed that a mediator’s reputation and perceived neutrality are essential for effective conflict resolution. In his assessment, Indonesia’s BOP membership and its timing risk eroding that neutrality in the eyes of external actors.
UGM quotes Professor Dafri as saying that “at the very least, we have moved away from our foundational position as a non-aligned state.” He also highlighted what he views as an overly centralized foreign policy decision-making process, in which strategic choices rely heavily on presidential decisions. According to him, ministries and academic research are not being optimally involved in shaping such high-stakes policies. He reiterated the importance of evidence-based policy, emphasizing that strategic foreign policy decisions should be grounded in strong academic studies and robust data rather than intuition alone.
Supporting details and expert economic concerns
The UGM report also outlines potential economic implications linked to the Iran–Israel conflict, as described by Professor Agus Sartono of the Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB UGM). Professor Agus warned that the conflict could exert serious pressure on the energy sector, particularly through rising global oil prices. He explained that higher oil prices would directly affect transportation and production costs, with knock-on effects across the economy. He stressed that ensuring fuel supply is the first priority because of its far-reaching implications.
According to UGM, Professor Agus noted that the economic impact may not yet be fully visible because energy import contracts are typically arranged several months in advance. However, he cautioned that within three to six months, price pressures could begin to influence cost structures across various sectors. He warned that higher production costs could strain businesses and disrupt export–import activities. He also pointed out that Indonesia’s dependence on imported consumer goods and energy increases its vulnerability during periods of global turbulence, underscoring the need to diversify export markets and reinforce domestic economic resilience.
What are the implications and possible next steps?
UGM’s coverage indicates that both Professor Dafri and Professor Agus see Indonesia’s BOP membership and the Iran–Israel conflict as intertwined tests of foreign policy consistency and economic resilience. From a geopolitical standpoint, Professor Dafri’s comments suggest that Indonesia may need to reassess how it balances participation in US-led initiatives with its “free and active” and non-aligned principles, especially if it wishes to retain credibility as a mediator. His emphasis on evidence-based policymaking points to calls for broader institutional and academic involvement in future foreign policy decisions.
From an economic perspective, Professor Agus’s analysis points to the risk that prolonged geopolitical tensions could translate into energy price shocks and broader macroeconomic pressures in the coming months. He argues that diversifying export markets, strengthening domestic capacities, and preparing mitigation strategies are crucial to protect employment and fiscal stability. UGM concludes that, in this period of uncertainty, consistency in upholding Indonesia’s foreign policy doctrine and reinforcing its economic foundations will be critical, as national sovereignty is being tested not only by trade agreements like the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade but also by rapidly evolving geopolitical dynamics connected to Indonesia’s role in the Board of Peace.
