If there is clear proof of the incompetence surrounding President Prabowo Subianto, it lies in the poor text and wording of his speech at the United Nations General Assembly just last week.
The speech, titled Indonesia’s Call for Hope, was a rhetorical, grammatical, logical, and diplomatic letdown. Despite having ample time and resources to craft a powerful address for one of the year’s most important diplomatic events, Prabowo was forced to deliver an amateurish and dangerously naive speech that resembled an NGO’s appeal more than an authoritative foreign policy statement.
To be fair, diplomatic speeches at the United Nations often walk a careful line. Leaders are expected to balance domestic expectations with international sensitivities, and there is always a temptation to default to safe, non-confrontational language. Prabowo’s speech did attempt to strike an optimistic and unifying tone, and his references to peacekeeping contributions, food security, and climate action were not without merit. However, these positive elements were ultimately overshadowed by poor judgment, rhetorical incoherence, and a dangerous failure to confront pressing realities, especially when speaking on behalf of a nation with Indonesia’s moral and geopolitical weight.
Ironically, Prabowo himself delivered the speech with energy, clarity, and conviction, far better than many Indonesian leaders since Soekarno’s legendary 1960 UN address. However, his confident delivery only highlighted the speech’s incoherence, contradictions, and shallowness, making him appear foolish for speaking so strongly on a fundamentally flawed message.
The tragedy is that Indonesia has world-class diplomats and thinkers, such as Marty Natalegawa, Dino Patti Djalal, and Thomas Lembong, whose strategic and eloquent voices could have shaped a speech worthy of a G20 nation and the world’s largest Muslim-majority country. Yet none seem to have been involved.
Structurally, the speech lacks focus and coherence. It opens with a long, ceremonial salutation, more appropriate for domestic occasions, then abruptly shifts to quoting Western revolutionary ideals like the US Declaration of Independence. From there, it jumps erratically among topics, from human rights, climate change, food security, to Indonesia’s rice production, and the Middle East conflict, without a clear thematic anchor or logical progression. The result feels like a committee-stitched patchwork designed to satisfy various interests but lacking a unifying message or strategic vision.
Beyond structure, the wording is often clumsy and imprecise. One of the speech’s most awkward lines, “Might cannot be right. Right must be right”, attempts to reject the idea that power justifies wrongdoing but instead comes off tautological and confusing. It sounds more like a poorly translated slogan than a statesmanlike declaration. A clearer, stronger phrasing such as “Might does not make right. Justice must prevail,” would have been far more impactful. These avoidable missteps demonstrate a lack of professional speechwriting and editing, particularly ironic given Indonesia’s access to experienced diplomats and communicators. In international diplomacy, words are weapons and currency, and many of Prabowo’s words were wasted opportunities to speak clearly, purposefully, and with conviction.
The speech’s greatest failure is its handling of the urgent and morally clear crisis in Gaza. Although Prabowo mentions the word “genocide,” he carefully avoids naming Israel, the perpetrator, or its main backer, the United States. This is a failure of courage, not diplomacy. A leader representing 274 million people, most of whom strongly support Palestine, should boldly confront the grim reality in Gaza. In less than a year, over 35,000 Palestinians have been killed, with thousands more injured or displaced. Starvation is deliberately engineered through prolonged siege tactics. Daily violations of international law include attacks on hospitals and refugee camps. Yet Israel flagrantly defies rulings from the International Court of Justice and binding UN resolutions, showing contempt for global norms.
This was a moment to take a moral stand, but Prabowo’s team chose vague generalizations and moral relativism instead, squandering a chance for Indonesia to assert global leadership in justice and solidarity. Perhaps the speech’s most damaging statement is the closing: “We must have an independent Palestine, but we must also recognize and guarantee the safety and security of Israel.” This proposal is naive, ahistorical, and diplomatically reckless. Israel does not need Indonesia’s recognition. It has been a full UN member since 1949, possesses nuclear weapons, controls occupied Palestinian territories, and enjoys economic and military backing from the US, EU, and other powers. Indonesia’s recognition is symbolic but linking it to “guaranteeing Israel’s security” is nonsensical, especially when Israel refuses the two-state solution.
Israel’s government has explicitly rejected the two-state solution under Netanyahu, expanded illegal settlements in the West Bank, maintained the brutal Gaza blockade since 2007, and ignored ICJ genocide case proceedings. Why then would Indonesia offer recognition and a security guarantee to a militarily dominant state acting in bad faith? This reveals a profound misunderstanding of the conflict’s asymmetry: Palestine is stateless, occupied, fragmented, and besieged. Israel is the occupying power. Treating them as equals is not diplomacy; it is moral abdication.
Predictably, pro-Israel media and political actors spun Prabowo’s speech as a signal that “Indonesia is willing to normalize ties with Israel,” conveniently omitting the clause about Palestine. This naive idealism became propaganda fodder for the apartheid regime. Because of Prabowo’s poorly crafted speech, the Israeli Prime Minister was able to twist his words at the UNGA, using them to suggest that even Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, is ready to acknowledge Israel and guarantee its security.
To further underscore the consequences of Prabowo’s poorly-drafted speech, just days later, a widely circulated photo emerged showing the Indonesian president prominently featured in Tel Aviv, surrounded by celebratory fanfare alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other pro-Israel leaders. The image sparked outrage across Indonesia, as it appeared to signal a dramatic and unexpected shift in the country’s traditionally pro-Palestinian stance.
This outcome illustrates the cost of amateur speechwriting and poorly considered diplomacy. Every word spoken at the UN becomes part of the global discourse. Leaders surround themselves with strategic thinkers because these words matter. Prabowo is clearly being undermined by incompetence rather than malice, but the effect remains damaging, confusing allies and harming the Palestinian cause.
Indonesia had a chance to do more than repeat tired slogans about peace and unity. As a G20 member, the largest Muslim-majority democracy, a historic supporter of Palestine, and a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement legacy, Indonesia could have backed South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ (which went unmentioned), demanded accountability and sanctions on Israel, called for an arms embargo, proposed an international peace conference, or pledged humanitarian corridors and legal aid for Palestinians. Instead, the speech highlights Indonesia’s rice surplus, a sea wall, and climate plans, worthy but distractions from the moral gravity of the Palestinian issue. When Prabowo circles back to Gaza, it is with empty platitudes and no clear call for international action.
The speech’s opening quote from the US Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal”, is tone-deaf and offensive given America’s complicity in Israeli war crimes and its repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council. Quoting American ideals without acknowledging their hypocrisy is intellectual surrender. Prabowo missed the chance to invoke Indonesian or Southeast Asian anti-colonial heroes like Soekarno, Tan Malaka, or HOS Tjokroaminoto, whose words would have resonated more authentically.
Several lines sound like direct, unedited translations from Bahasa Indonesia, such as: “Without the International Civil Aviation Organization, will we be here today?” This is clumsy, confusing, and unrelated to the speech’s core purpose. These errors suggest a rushed, poorly advised process. At the UN, every word counts; such sloppiness is inexcusable.
President Prabowo showed confidence, energy, and clarity, but his excellent delivery was wasted on a deeply flawed script full of contradictions, historical errors, and diplomatic misjudgments. Instead of positioning Indonesia as a moral leader of the Global South, the speech painted a picture of confusion, timidity in the face of genocide, and a desire to please powers that disregard international law.
The real failure lies not in Prabowo’s speaking skills but in the advisers, speechwriters, and foreign policy handlers who gave him this disastrous script. Fixing this is still possible but requires a serious overhaul of the President’s foreign policy team and the inclusion of seasoned, principled experts who know what they are doing.
Yet, the foreign policy team’s incompetence is just the tip of the iceberg. Prabowo’s government is riddled with personnel failures. For example, appointing a political buzzer like Hasan Nasbi, who failed as head of the Presidential Communication Office and lacks relevant expertise, to a commissioner role at Pertamina is a glaring mistake. Similarly, Nanik S. Deyang, with no clear qualifications, holds strategic posts both as Pertamina commissioner and deputy chief of the National Nutrition Office (BGN), which manages a multitrillion rupiah free meal program.
These are not isolated cases. Numerous appointments at the ministerial and high governmental levels reflect a disturbing pattern of cronyism over competence. This widespread disregard for meritocracy sacrifices effective governance for political loyalty, creating ticking time bombs that threaten swift, devastating consequences.
Ultimately, these poor appointments will come back to bite Prabowo, undermining his leadership, credibility, and Indonesia’s progress. The surreal reality underscores the urgent need for serious reform and accountability at the highest levels of government.
***
Omong-Omong Media’s editorial is also published in The Jakarta Post every Monday.
