search
Jannus TH Siahaan

How Indonesia should interpret Steve Witkoff’s statement

Steve Witkoff, a member of the Donald Trump administration’s transition team, in an interview with NBC News regarding the recent conditions in Gaza, mentioned Indonesia as one of the countries being considered by the Donald Trump administration to accept the relocation of Gazans during the reconstruction period. And the news resurfaced in the Times of Israel, which was then immediately widely quoted by the media in Indonesia today.

Unsurprisingly, when Indonesia’s media confirmed this with the foreign affairs ministry, the answer they got was that the Indonesian Foreign Affairs Ministry did not know about it.

Of course, this is very understandable. First, because the statement did not come officially from the US government, it only appeared unplanned in an interview, which was also conducted with members of the new administration’s transition team in Washington, a few days before the inauguration of the new US president. So the statement is not an official stance from the US government led by Donald Trump.

Second, the statement is also not based on existing facts. Just imagine, after being bombed for more than a year, the majority of the population of Gaza still chooses to stay there or simply move to the nearest area that is considered a safe area. Moreover, if it is only reconstructed, the relevance of relocating the population of Gaza to another area, instead of to another country, will automatically be lost.

And third, if migration is done voluntarily, Indonesia is not a destination for Palestinian/Gaza migrants so far. Middle Eastern society in general, especially people in conflict areas, usually prefer developed countries as migration destinations, such as US or countries in Europe, because they are indeed economically promising.

Moreover, if it is associated with the discourse of a “two-state solution”, it is clear that Witkoff’s idea is far from the truth. After all, there is no guarantee that the reconstruction will be intended for the people of Gaza, if the people themselves are evacuated to a country far away. Wouldn’t this discourse have the potential to become a “soft expulsion” of the people of Gaza? Or in other words, it would be a “soft realization of Israel’s annexation” of Gaza, which would create a new conflict.

So substantively and technically, Steve Witkoff’s statement does not seem to be intended to convey a future plan that will be implemented in Gaza. However, I also believe that the statement was not a “slip of the tongue”. It seems that there is a symbolic message that the Trump administration’s Internal Team tasked with managing peace issues in Gaza wants to convey to Indonesia.

In my opinion, there is a kind of displeasure or discomfort from the Trump administration towards Indonesia, related to the Gaza issue. The reason is, so far, especially during the more than one year of war in Gaza, Indonesia, in this case the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the leadership of Mrs. Retno Masudi, has been seen to be very active in gathering strength at the UN to corner and delegitimize Israel. Indonesia’s role is even very active in pushing for the birth of “war criminal” status for the current highest leader in Israel at the ICC.

The problem is that Indonesia’s efforts do not touch the root of the problem that could encourage the birth of a peace agreement. The proof is that the peace agreement was born not because of the hard work of the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, either Retno Masudi or Sugiono, but through back-door diplomacy efforts carried out by Qatar, for example, to bridge Hamas and Israel on the one hand and bring US into the peace talks arena on the other.

So the displeasure arose because Indonesia was super active in going back and forth at the UN to corner Israel and sow the personal popularity of its ministers on the international stage, but contradictorily it actually complicated the problem, not solving it. Indonesia’s efforts at the UN added to the anger in Tel Aviv, which then made the Netanyahu government even more enthusiastic about razing Gaza in the name of fighting Hamas.

It was even reported that on “H-1”, Netanyahu was still trying to cancel the peace agreement plan because he felt he still wanted to keep razing Hamas on the one hand and expanding the “span of control” of Israeli troops in Gaza on the other. This means that for Israel and Netanyahu, the more the international forum corners them, the more opportunities Israel will use to expand and raze Hamas and other external threats.

And it is as if Indonesia has never learned from the history of peace efforts in the land of Abraham on the one hand and with the character of Israel’s foreign policy as I mentioned on the other hand. Indonesia continues to play its old aggressive card in international institutions, but has never been able to bridge the conflict there, because it has never succeeded in opening a special channel to either party, Hamas or Israel.

Almost all peace agreements between Israel and Palestine were born from the initiation of backdoor diplomacy carried out by certain countries that have roles and interests in the Middle East, especially US, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and others, not from efforts to gang up on Israel in international institutions such as the UN.

For example, the birth of the Abraham Accord at the end of the first term of the Trump administration. Backdoor diplomacy carried out by Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, to the UAE on the one hand and backdoor support from Saudi Arabia (MBS) on the other hand, because of Jared Kushner’s closeness to MBS, were the main determinants. As is known, there were no signs at all in the UN forum about this agreement, but it was realized well and still survives to this day.

What must be understood is that in some cases, dealing with Israel is not the same as dealing with countries in general in the world, because the cases are very unique and complicated. If Indonesia wants to find an equivalent, dealing with Israel is somewhat similar to dealing with Russia under Putin’s leadership, for example.

If it is related to Russia’s strategic interests, for example ensuring the existence of a “buffer zone” between Russia and NATO in Eastern Europe that requires Russia to invade Ukraine, Russia no longer needs affirmation from UN members, because according to the Kremlin, what they are doing is in order to protect themselves from the existential threat that NATO has continued to spread since the end of the Cold War.

Various curses and multilateral initiatives at the UN forum are no longer useful for Russia, especially for Putin. Moreover, Jokowi’s visit to Kiev and Moscow a few months after the war broke out on the eastern border of Ukraine certainly did not have the slightest effect on Putin’s decision. Including Prabowo’s speech in Egypt recently, which made Erdogan finally leave the room disrespectfully when the new Indonesian president was on the podium, it is almost certain that it will not make it easier to resolve the problem in Gaza, but rather complicate it. And Erdogan understands that of course.

So back to the statement of Donald Trump’s transition staff, Steve Witkoff, who mentioned Indonesia in his unofficial statement, in my opinion, is a symbolic message to Indonesia, regarding Indonesia’s attitude and foreign policy so far related to peace in Gaza and Palestine. This means that the statement does not represent the technical work plan of the new government in Washington and it is very natural that the foreign affair ministry in Indonesia does not know about it.

The response of not knowing from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is certainly understandable, because it is not an official policy plan of the Trump administration, so it does not need to be communicated to Indonesia formally. But as a symbolic message, the media channel via the “accidental statement” mechanism is a channel commonly used by any government to convey hidden messages to certain parties, in addition to the “leakage” mechanism or information leaks which are usually deliberate.

So to understand it requires sensitivity on the one hand and a thorough introspection of Indonesia’s foreign policy and attitude related to the Gaza issue on the other, which I believe will be very difficult to do in Indonesia.

Because, as has been witnessed recently, Indonesia through its new president, Prabowo Subianto, has also begun to get caught up in the old way and approach in viewing the Israel-Palestine problem, namely using international forums to condemn and corner Israel, without trying to find a role gap through the “backdoor diplomacy” channel that can connect both parties on the one hand and encourage great power countries to get involved in it on the other.

Just look, when Prabowo was talking about the Palestinian issue in Egypt, Erdogan just left the room disrespectfully. This means that Indonesia actually does not need to teach other countries about how to solve the problem in Palestine. All the lectures that Indonesia gives to the world about Palestine will be in vain, because everyone already knows about it. What is awaited is a smart, creative, and “possible” effort on how to bring peace to Gaza and Palestine, not a popular effort that will result in praise, but will actually worsen the situation. Hopefully

About the Author
Doctor of Sociology from Padjadjaran University, Indonesia. Defense and Environment Observer.