When Donald Trump unveiled the Board of Peace (BOP) in Davos, the announcement immediately sparked debate across diplomatic circles. The question was inevitable: why did Indonesia and Viet Nam, two countries long associated with independent and non-aligned foreign policies, move quickly to become founding members?
The answer lies not in alignment, but in strategy. For Jakarta and Hanoi, joining the Board of Peace was never about following Washington’s lead. It was about entering the room early, shaping the agenda from within, and ensuring that one principle would not be diluted: Palestinian statehood through a Two-State Solution.
Indonesia: Guarding Palestinian Sovereignty from the Inside
Indonesia’s decision was framed clearly by Foreign Minister Sugiono, who stated that the move came directly from President Prabowo Subianto. The rationale was straightforward but calculated.
Indonesia did not want the question of Palestinian independence to remain a symbolic talking point in global forums that rarely deliver concrete outcomes. By joining the Board of Peace at its inception, Jakarta positioned itself inside the mechanism of influence, rather than as a distant observer.
From Indonesia’s perspective, participation was a form of frontline diplomacy, engaging directly where early frameworks, mandates, and priorities are being written. The goal is to ensure that any peace architecture emerging from the BOP remains anchored to internationally recognized principles: Palestinian self-determination, territorial sovereignty, and a viable Two-State Solution.
Rather than diluting Indonesia’s long-held stance, the move reflects a shift toward more tangible engagement. Jakarta is betting that being present at the decision-making table offers more leverage than issuing statements from outside it.
Viet Nam: Bridging the UN Framework with a New Peace Initiative
Viet Nam’s approach carries a different but complementary logic. Hanoi views the Board of Peace as a platform that can help operationalize existing international commitments, particularly those tied to United Nations resolutions.
Vietnamese leader Tô Lâm emphasized that participation in the BOP aligns with Viet Nam’s support for UN Security Council resolutions related to Gaza and post-conflict reconstruction. Rather than competing with multilateral institutions, Viet Nam sees the initiative as a practical extension of them.
At the same time, Hanoi is leveraging the moment to reinforce its Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with the United States. For Viet Nam, the calculus is dual-layered: contributing to global peace efforts while safeguarding national interests within an evolving international order.
This balancing act reflects Viet Nam’s growing confidence as a middle power, one that can engage new initiatives without abandoning multilateral norms.
A Shared Mission: Two States, One Moral Line
Despite differing diplomatic styles, Indonesia and Viet Nam converge on a single red line: Palestinian independence is non-negotiable.
Both governments have stressed that lasting peace cannot exist without a sovereign Palestinian state living alongside Israel in security and mutual recognition. Their presence within the Board of Peace is intended to act as a moral counterweight, ensuring humanitarian principles are not overshadowed by political expediency.
Rather than passive participants, Jakarta and Hanoi are positioning themselves as guardians of intent, states determined to keep the initiative aligned with international law and human dignity.
In a forum shaped by great-power influence, Southeast Asia’s voice adds balance. Indonesia and Viet Nam are not there to endorse any one leader’s vision, but to ensure that peace efforts remain grounded in justice, legitimacy, and long-term stability.
Why This Matters for Southeast Asia
Indonesia and Viet Nam’s early entry into the Board of Peace signals a broader shift in ASEAN diplomacy. Regional powers are no longer content to react after decisions are made, they are moving upstream, shaping conversations before outcomes are locked in.
This is not alignment. It is a strategic presence. By stepping into the process early, both countries aim to prevent the peace initiative from drifting away from its core humanitarian mission.
In doing so, they underline Southeast Asia’s growing role as a principled, proactive actor in global diplomacy, one that engages power without surrendering values.
