JAKARTA, Legal Literacy — Political figure Anies Rasyid Baswedan believes that the United States' and Israel's attacks on Iran should be a momentum for Indonesia to review, and even end, its participation in the Board of Peace (BoP). According to Anies, the aggression against a sovereign state is a violation of international law and is contrary to the principles of peace, anti-colonialism, and a free and active foreign policy that has been Indonesia's foundation. Anies conveyed this stance through his verified Instagram account on Thursday, March 5, 2026.

In his view, Indonesia should not remain in a forum that carries the name of peace if its founders are associated with actions deemed to violate international law. Anies emphasized that membership in such a forum should not be maintained solely for diplomatic symbols, especially if Indonesia's presence risks being interpreted as a form of tolerance for military aggression. He even called the attack on Iran a moral test for the consistency of Indonesia's foreign policy.

Anies reminded that Indonesia has a strong diplomatic legacy as a pioneer of the Asia-Africa Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, two important milestones that from the beginning placed respect for state sovereignty, rejection of colonialism, and a world order based on international law as the main principles. Therefore, according to him, remaining in the BoP after the attack on Iran could erode Indonesia's consistency with the mandate of the constitution, especially the commitment to participate in implementing a world order based on independence, eternal peace, and social justice.

For Anies, leaving the BoP does not mean that Indonesia rejects peace. On the contrary, that step can be read as a reaffirmation that Indonesia does not want to be part of a peace forum that it considers has failed to maintain its own moral integrity. In that logic, a free and active foreign policy is not about getting closer to global power centers, but about loyalty to the nation's principles in defending sovereignty, international law, and victims of aggression.

Calls to Withdraw from BoP are Increasingly Strengthening from Various Parties

Anies's views emerged amidst growing criticism of Indonesia's membership in the BoP. Several other parties, including the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), have also urged the government to withdraw Indonesia's membership from the forum. The MUI stated that the BoP has lost its legitimacy and is useless after the US-Israeli attack on Iran, because the forum is considered to have failed to achieve peace and has instead failed to prevent the escalation of conflict in the Middle East.

Similar demands also came from parliamentarians. Deputy Chairman of the MPR Hidayat Nur Wahid supported the evaluation of the effectiveness of the BoP and considered it reasonable for the public to question the forum after the conflict had actually widened. Meanwhile, TB Hasanuddin from Commission I of the DPR was also among the voices who considered Indonesia's membership in the BoP to potentially disrupt the integrity of Indonesia's foreign policy, especially if the government did not show a firm stance against the attack on Iran.

On the other hand, the debate regarding the BoP is also related to Indonesia's position amidst increasingly complex global conflicts. There are those who believe that Indonesia can still play a role as a mediator if it stands in a more independent position and is not bound to a forum whose legitimacy is being questioned. Within that framework, the proposal to withdraw from the BoP is seen by some as not an anti-dialogue stance, but rather as an effort to restore Indonesia's credibility as a country that is consistent with the principles of international law and an active and independent political stance.

Overall, Anies's statement shows that the BoP issue is no longer merely a formal diplomatic matter, but has developed into a debate that touches on the core of Indonesia's foreign policy, consistency with international law, and the country's moral position amidst global conflicts. If public pressure continues to increase, the government potentially faces increasingly strong demands to explain the direction of its policy: to remain in the BoP, evaluate Indonesia's role in it, or take decisive steps to withdraw in order to maintain consistency with the principle of an active and independent stance.