Here is a critical analysis of President Prabowo’s speech at the UN General Assembly last week - published in The Jakarta Post.
It’s good to analyse these things, draw your own conclusions, and improve your own speeches and public speaking.
Below I have shared the Jakarta Post article as well as links to the speech itself - both the recording and the full transcript. I hope this will be read and considered by many students of international relations, as well as anyone with an interest in diplomacy and communication skills.
“Excellent UN speech, but poor text muddles the message.
If there is clear proof of the incompetence surrounding President Prabowo Subianto, it lies in the poor structure and wording of his speech at the United Nations General Assembly just last week.
Article by Abdul Khalik (The Jakarta Post) Monday, September 29, 2025
If there is clear proof of the incompetence surrounding President Prabowo Subianto, it lies in the poor structure 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.
To be fair, diplomatic speeches at the UN often walk a careful line. 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 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 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.
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.”
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, European Union 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.
Because of this, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 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.
Pro-Israel media and political actors also spun Prabowo’s speech as a signal that “Indonesia is willing to normalize ties with Israel,” conveniently omitting the clause about Palestine.
This 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.
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. 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.
President Prabowo showed confidence, energy and clarity, but his excellent delivery was wasted on a deeply flawed script. 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.
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.”
The writer [Abdul Khalik] is editor-in-chief of Omong-Omong Media.
This article was published in the Jakarta Post with the title “Excellent UN speech, but poor text muddles the message.”
Sumber: https://x.com/ColminIndonesia/status/1972945051807555702