Why Prabowo’s presence at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit raises questions

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto’s recent appearance at the Gaza peace summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, was meant to convey international solidarity and a commitment to resolving one of the world’s most protracted and painful conflicts. Yet despite its diplomatic intentions, Prabowo’s attendance raises significant concerns—about both the summit’s legitimacy and Indonesia’s role in the process.

The summit, held on October 13 and co-hosted by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and US President Donald Trump, brought together more than 20 world leaders. It concluded with the signing of a peace agreement by the United States, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar—hailed as a “comprehensive” resolution to the war in Gaza. Prabowo was seated prominently, applauded the signing, and even received direct praise from Trump, who referred to him as “an extraordinary person.”

But what the event offered in spectacle, it lacked in substance. A deal claiming to end a devastating two-year war must be judged by its inclusivity, its accountability, and its alignment with international law. On these fronts, the Sharm el-Sheikh summit fell short. Crucial Palestinian voices—particularly from Gaza—were absent from the negotiations. The document, signed without Hamas or broad civil society representation, risks being seen less as a peace agreement and more as a political performance.

Indonesia, a consistent and long-standing supporter of Palestinian self-determination, has built its foreign policy reputation on principle, especially on matters of global justice. Its support for Palestine is enshrined not only in diplomatic tradition but in the Indonesian Constitution itself. Against this backdrop, Prabowo’s decision to attend a summit orchestrated and dominated by figures like Trump and Sisi—leaders with contentious human rights records and strategic interests in the conflict—feels uncharacteristically out of step.

Trump, in particular, played a deeply partisan role during the Gaza war. His administration provided Israel with weapons, intelligence, and diplomatic cover at the United Nations, all while framing its military campaign in Gaza as a fight against terrorism. His so-called peace rhetoric often masked this alignment. The Sharm el-Sheikh summit, with Trump at its center, appears to be more about recasting that involvement as visionary statesmanship than reckoning with the war’s devastating human toll.

READ: Indonesia denies reports that President Prabowo will visit Israel

This context makes Prabowo’s participation all the more difficult to reconcile. While international engagement is important, there is a risk that Indonesia’s presence at this summit could be seen as endorsing a flawed process—one that prioritizes optics over justice.

More troubling still was an exchange between Prabowo and Trump, caught inadvertently on a live microphone. In the clip, Prabowo is heard asking to meet Trump’s son, Eric, an executive at the Trump Organization, which holds business interests in Indonesia. Trump responds affirmatively, saying, “I’ll have Eric call.” Although there is no evidence of impropriety, the timing and setting of the request—at an international peace conference—raise legitimate concerns about optics and propriety.

To be fair, Indonesia’s government has expressed a sincere desire to contribute to peace in Gaza. Prabowo’s earlier offer to send 20,000 peacekeepers to support post-conflict stabilization, if requested by the international community, was a bold and constructive gesture. But it must be rooted in a credible peace process. Participation in a summit that lacks meaningful representation from those most affected by the war risks undermining those very efforts.

Prabowo’s attendance, however well-intentioned, has blurred the line between principled diplomacy and political theater. In doing so, it could dilute Indonesia’s moral authority on the global stage, especially in the eyes of its own citizens, many of whom have long stood in solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

Indonesia has a unique voice to offer in global diplomacy—one rooted in non-alignment, democracy, and a history of standing against colonialism. Its strength lies not in merely being present, but in choosing when and how to participate. True leadership sometimes means stepping away from the spotlight when the process behind it fails to live up to the values it claims to promote.

What happened in Sharm el-Sheikh may have looked like peace. But diplomacy is not defined by applause or photo opportunities. It is defined by whether those most affected are heard, and whether justice is part of the foundation. On that measure, the summit fell short—and Indonesia, unfortunately, may have been pulled into a performance rather than a solution.

OPINION: Indonesia should prioritise stronger ties with Oman

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.