Coercing weaker nations rather than engaging in diplomatic solutions reflects the fundamental flaw of Trump’s unilateralism.
Step into the Amazon rainforest, and you’ll find a masterpiece of resilience: towering trees, dense undergrowth and countless species. Each playing its part in an ecosystem that has thrived for millennia. This diversity is not just aesthetic. It is the reason the rainforest endures.
Now, picture a vast plantation of a single crop, such as palm oil. For the first few years, the land is fertile, production is high, and profits flow. But as time passes, the soil weakens. The monoculture depletes its own foundation, leaving the land barren, drained of life.
For decades, the world has functioned like a rainforest – not perfect, not always orderly, but ultimately sustainable. Institutions like the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the wider international treaties have never been flawless, but they have provided a system of checks and balances that prevents any single country from dictating the terms of global stability alone.
These institutions, much like the diverse species of a thriving ecosystem, ensure that even when one part falters, the whole does not collapse.
Unilateralism, on the other hand, is the political equivalent of clear-cutting a forest to plant a single crop. It may look efficient in the short term, but by erasing diversity of voices, of negotiations, of shared decision-making, it creates a system that cannot endure.
And no leader in recent history has championed this monoculture of power more than United States President Donald Trump.
His approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his so-called “solution” for Gaza, was not just a failure of diplomacy. It was a symptom of something much bigger.
Trump’s approach to Gaza was defined by unilateralism, prioritizing one-sided power plays over diplomacy. In 2017, he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, ignoring international consensus. In 2018, he cut all US aid to Palestinian refugees, crippling UNRWA. By 2020, his administration had brokered the Abraham Accords, persuading Arab states to normalize relations with Israel while leaving Palestinians out of the conversation entirely.
These moves sidelined diplomacy, reinforced imbalance, and deepened regional tensions.
More recently, Trump proposed relocating Palestinians out of Gaza, a move widely condemned as unrealistic, illegal and a humanitarian disaster. Forcibly moving civilians would worsen Gaza’s crisis, escalate tensions and fuel further radicalization.
Coercing weaker nations rather than engaging in diplomatic solutions reflects the fundamental flaw of Trump’s unilateralism. If global stability depends on cooperation, then forcing nations into compliance, ignoring international institutions and dictating terms without consensus only weakens the system.
With Trump returning to the presidency, the global landscape faces another test of unilateralism. There is deep uncertainty over whether the US will further disengage from international mediation efforts or double down on its unilateral foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.
This shift toward unilateralism threatens decades of global efforts to prioritize diplomacy over force. After World War II, the world rejected power politics in favor of multilateral institutions, establishing the UN in 1945 and reinforcing principles of sovereignty and collective security. During the Cold War, while the US and USSR competed for influence, major conflicts were ultimately defused through multilateral diplomacy rather than unilateral action. Even the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which bypassed the UN, sparked global backlash, reinforcing that international legitimacy mattered.
In the past, major powers have acknowledged that unilateralism is unsustainable. The Marshall Plan (1948) proved that economic recovery required global cooperation, not isolated policies. The formation of NATO (1949) and later the European Union (1993) showed that collective security and economic partnerships were preferable to isolated decision-making.
The consequences of abandoning this model are already playing out. Trump’s actions weakened America’s credibility as a neutral arbiter in global conflicts, emboldened hardline Israeli policies and left Palestinians more marginalized than ever. But the biggest casualty wasn’t just the peace process. It was the very idea that international order is built on cooperation rather than coercion.
Indonesia, as the world’s third-largest democracy and a key player in ASEAN and the Non-Aligned Movement, must actively and strategically engage in promoting cooperation over coercion. With its long-standing foreign policy principle of “free and active” diplomacy, Indonesia has the credibility to advocate for multilateral solutions in conflict resolution, economic partnerships and humanitarian efforts.
By taking a more proactive stance in mediating international disputes and strengthening regional diplomacy, Indonesia can play a critical role in countering the resurgence of unilateralism and ensuring that global governance is built on consensus rather than coercion.
However, multilateralism is being challenged not only by Western unilateralism but also by China’s increasing assertiveness. Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, its Belt and Road Initiative and its growing economic leverage over developing nations all present challenges to the international system. While China positions itself as a counterbalance to US hegemony, its own strategic expansionism raises concerns about a different kind of unilateral power play.
Indonesia must navigate this landscape carefully, ensuring that it does not fall into great-power rivalries while still upholding its diplomatic principles.
To strengthen its position, Indonesia must deepen strategic partnerships with regional allies, including Australia, which, as a key US ally in the Indo-Pacific, shares Indonesia’s interest in regional stability, economic resilience and security cooperation. Strengthening Indonesia-Australia relations, particularly through forums like ASEAN, AUKUS dialogues and defense cooperation, can provide a buffer against both Western and Chinese unilateralism, ensuring that Southeast Asia remains a region of balanced diplomacy rather than a battleground for superpower competition.
The world is not a single-crop plantation. It is a rainforest, rich with different voices, perspectives and interests. And if we wish to sustain peace, we must remember what nature has always known: survival depends not on domination, but on balance.
The article was published in the Opinion section of The Jakarta Post on February 15, 2025.
Hangga Fathana
A lecturer in the Department of International Relations at the Indonesian Islamic University (UII), specializing in research on global political economy, trade politics, and the dynamics of capitalist development.
