When Peace is Covered by Interests of Power

JAKARTA - The Board of Peace was originally from the initiative to build Back Gaza after the chaos caused by the war. The "Board of Peace" or the Gaza Peace Council was formed by US President Donald Trump.

The "Board of Peace" initiative was first launched by Donald Trump at the prestigious World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week.

Foreign Minister Sugiono, although initially intended to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza after the conflict, the council's charter does not seem to limit its role only in the Palestinian territories. This raises major questions from the international community regarding the scope of its authority in the future.

Then it evolved into a global initiative, a cross-national dialogue, and universal humanitarian values. However, behind this ideal narrative, its membership structure is often filled by political elites, former military officials, and global corporate figures who have a track record of strong strategic and economic interests.

This kind of composition triggers serious criticism about its neutrality claim, because the agenda, recommendations, and discourse produced are often in line with certain geopolitical interests, not the voices of conflict victims or civil society.

Instead of being an independent ethical space, the Board of Peace is more of a symbolic stage - selectively chosen and packaged, to give moral legitimacy to political and economic decisions that have been determined from the beginning, by the parties who are benefited in this case by the United States.

The question is whether the Board of Peace can create peace in the Middle East, especially creating Palestinian independence from Israeli occupation. It needs to be answered honestly and realistically, the possibility is very small.

Structurally, the Board of Peace has no political, legal, or military power to force real change. It is neither the United Nations, nor the International Court of Justice, nor a state actor. Furthermore, as many have criticized, the composition of its members is dominated by global political elites, former military officials, and major corporate actors, making its moral position often neutral towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

However, according to the 6th President of the Republic of Indonesia, Yudhoyono, President Prabowo has considered both the good and the bad of being involved in the BOP. In many cases, forums of this kind tend to produce "abstract peace" narratives without touching the root of the issues of population, colonialism, apartheid, and violations of international law by Israel.

Regarding Palestine, history shows that peace has never been born from a mere moral forum, but from concrete political pressure, international sanctions, economic boycotts, diplomatic resistance, and consistent global solidarity. As long as the United States and its main allies continue to protect Israel politically and militarily, the Board of Peace, if it does not dare to challenge these forces, will stop at statements of concern, soft resolutions, and only repeated calls for dialogue.

Can Palestine be independent? Yes, historically and under international law, the possibility exists. However, Palestinian independence will not be born on a sterile and compromising ethical stage. It will only materialize when the international community dares to abandon double standards, recognizes the occupation as a crime, and presses Israel in a tangible way.

In this context, the Board of Peace is more likely to become a symbol of moral power without coercion, unless he dares to transform from a rhetorical forum into a political actor who is clearly on the side of justice, not just a "balance" of the pseudo.

If asked who benefits most from the formation of the Board of Peace, and the global power network, with the United States and its western allies in the most strategic position.

First, the United States (US) benefits narratively and symbolically. The Board of Peace serves as a moral shield, giving the impression that the US-led global order remains based on ethics, dialogue, and peace, even as the US is directly or indirectly involved in armed conflicts, arms sales, and support for repressive regimes, including Israel. This kind of forum helps shift structural criticism into a safe and non-threatening normative discussion of geopolitical interests.

Second, Western countries and regional allies benefit because the Board of Peace provides a "pseudo-neutral" space to level the playing field without having to take real political risks. They can appear as supporters of peace without having to impose sanctions, stop military cooperation, or challenge US dominance. In other words, this is a peace without political costs.

Third, non-state elites - global corporations, defense industries, and international financial actors - also benefit greatly. Their version of stability is not substantive justice, but rather the containment of conflict so that markets can continue to run. The Board of Peace helps maintain the appointed global status quo while wrapping it in moral language, so that economic interests are not too vulgar.

According to UI International Law Expert Hikmahanto Juwana, the formation of this organization is strange, even though it is appointed as the chairman of the BoP but without the choice of members from members. In the same vein, military and defense observer Connie Rahakundini Bakrie, saw Indonesia's entry into the BoP, an urgency, not to mention that it has not yet received the consent of the DPR.

Why do other countries participate and "benefit"? Because for many Global South countries or middle-income countries, involvement in the Board of Peace gives international legitimacy, access to global elite networks, and symbolic bargaining positions, albeit with the consequence of limiting their critical stance. They get a seat at the table, but not control over the menu. A number of experts see Indonesia's involvement in the BoP will only make us go with the flow.

In short, the Board of Peace is more beneficial to the existing global power architecture, not the victims of the conflict. As long as peace is defined as stability without justice, this forum will serve more as a tool for image and interest management, not as an instrument of liberation or independence, including for the Palestinians.

But according to Minister Sugiono, this is part of our efforts to create peace in Gaza. He emphasized Indonesia's position in the Board of Peace (BoP) to continue to fight for Palestinian independence and sovereignty, even though in the BoP structure there is no Palestinian representative and it actually involves Israel and the United States (US).