US President Donald Trump is set to convene a high‑profile signing ceremony at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week for his newly proposed “Board of Peace”, an international body devised to oversee the next phase of the Gaza peace process and potentially broader conflict resolution efforts.
The initiative has been formally endorsed by the UN Security Council for its role in Gaza, but has met with mounting global caution and resistance. Major Western allies, including France, the United Kingdom and Germany, have expressed reservations or declined participation, citing concerns about the board’s mandate and its ramifications for United Nations authority.
Still, invitations have been issued to a wide range of governments, with countries such as Hungary and others accepting, while China has acknowledged its invite without confirming support. Even Israel has been approached to participate, though it has criticised parts of the plan.
The board’s structure, including reportedly offering permanent seats for US $1 billion contributions, and provisions potentially placing Trump as lifelong chair, have further fuelled debate among diplomats and analysts worldwide.
Diplomatic pushback and competing visions for peace
The Board of Peace is structured as part of the implementation of Trump’s Gaza peace framework, initially rooted in a 20‑point plan to end the war in Gaza and oversee reconstruction and transitional governance. The board is intended, at least initially, to supervise Gaza’s reconstruction, the disarmament of armed groups, and the establishment of a new governance arrangement, though its charter’s language has been interpreted by some diplomats as significantly broader than that narrow mandate.
European responses have been notably mixed. French President Emmanuel Macron declined to join the board, with officials stating that its charter appears to contradict key United Nations principles, and suggesting it could overshadow established multilateral mechanisms.
Trump responded with strong rhetoric, including threatening tariffs of up to 200 per cent on French wine and champagne, underscoring sharp diplomatic friction between Washington and European capitals.
Other European leaders, such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have acknowledged invitations but are consulting with allies before committing, while countries including the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Canada reportedly choose to abstain from the Davos ceremony.
The United Nations itself has tried to strike a balanced tone, with a spokesperson noting that the world body has long coexisted alongside other international institutions and that its future relationship with the Board of Peace will depend on how the initiative develops. Meanwhile, China confirmed receiving an invitation without stating whether it will participate, indicating that Beijing is assessing the proposal in light of its broader diplomatic relations.
Origins and wider geopolitical implications
The Board of Peace was conceived against the backdrop of the long, brutal conflict between Israel and Hamas, which erupted into full‑scale war on 7 October 2023 and has since left Gaza devastated. In October 2025, a major summit in Sharm el‑Sheikh, Egypt, co‑chaired by Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el‑Sisi, sought to outline a multi‑stage peace framework, culminating in the creation of this new body.
Under the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2803, adopted in November 2025, an international stabilisation force and the Board of Peace were authorised to help rebuild Gaza following a fragile ceasefire. However, implementation has been slow, with debates persisting over key points like troop commitments for the stabilisation force, especially given Hamas’s refusal to disarm until broader political goals are met.
Critics of the board argue that its financing model including offers of “permanent” membership for substantial contributions resembles a “pay‑to‑play” system that could concentrate influence among wealthier or more strategic states.
Such provisions, coupled with Trump’s role as lifetime chair and broad authority over membership and funding distribution, have raised questions about accountability, equity and the potential overlap or conflict with longstanding institutions such as the United Nations.
Concerns also extend to perceptions that the board could be leveraged as a global peacemaking entity beyond Gaza, a vision some US officials describe as “aspirational”, but which critics dismiss as potentially undermining the international order centred on the UN Charter.
Asia‑Pacific responses add another layer of complexity. While Singapore has acknowledged its invitation and is assessing the proposal, it emphasised its preference for constructive ground‑level engagement rather than high‑profile diplomatic seating. In South Asia, commentary has emerged advising caution for nations like India, who must weigh geopolitical risks, strategic autonomy and broader regional relationships before committing to Trump’s initiative.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
While any major conflict demands innovative thinking to end violence and expand prospects for reconstruction, The Logical Indian believes peace initiatives must be rooted in inclusive, transparent multilateralism, not polarising power plays that risk concentrating authority or sidelining established global organisations. Genuine peace in Gaza and beyond requires respect for human dignity, adherence to international law, and mechanisms that centre the voices of civilians who have borne the brunt of conflict.
A peace process that is contingent on high‑priced seats and personalised influence runs the risk of alienating key stakeholders, deepening geopolitical divides, and undermining long‑term stability. Cooperation that upholds the core principles of the United Nations Charter, while integrating local perspectives and regional actors, offers the most promising path to breakdown entrenched cycles of violence.
