Trump’s “Board of Peace”: A New Power Forum That Puts India in a Strategic Bind

Why in News ?

India has chosen, for now, to stay away from US President Donald Trump’s proposed Board of Peace, unveiled at the World Economic Forum in Davos, adopting a cautious “wait and watch” approach despite an invitation extended to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

About Trump’s Board of Peace

The Board of Peace is a US-led intergovernmental body designed to manage global conflict resolution and post-war reconstruction.

Origin and Purpose

• Proposed in September 2025.
• Created to oversee “Phase Two” of the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza following the 2023–2025 conflict.

Immediate Mandate

• Supervise the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) — a Palestinian technocratic authority.
• Manage:
  • Gaza’s reconstruction,
  • Disarmament of Hamas,
  • Stabilisation and governance transitions.

Leadership and Composition

• Chair: Donald Trump.
• Key members: Jared Kushner, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
• Countries that have accepted invitations: Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, among others.
• Notable absentees: France, Germany, the UK, Italy; and permanent UNSC members — Russia, China, France, and the UK.

India’s Immediate Response on Joining the Board of Peace

• India has neither accepted nor declined the invitation.
• New Delhi is conducting a strategic, political, and diplomatic assessment before making a decision.
• The official posture reflects India’s preference for measured engagement in new and untested multilateral frameworks.

Why Trump’s Board of Peace Puts India in a Tight Spot

1. An Exclusive, Pay-to-Enter Peace Club

• Permanent membership reportedly requires a $1 billion contribution to a reconstruction fund.
• This effectively turns peace-making into a pay-to-enter arrangement, raising concerns about:
  • Equity,
  • Legitimacy,
  • Influence-buying in global governance.

2. Unclear Scope, Expanding Concerns

• Although Gaza is the immediate focus, the board’s charter avoids explicit territorial limits.
• Broad phrases like “world peace” raise fears of:
  • Mission creep,
  • Expansion into other conflicts,
  • Strategic overreach beyond its original mandate.

3. Fragmented Peace-Making Outside the UN System

• The board bypasses established multilateral institutions such as the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council.
• Its selective membership risks:
  • Arbitrary decision-making,
  • Fragmented global peace processes,
  • Erosion of institutional legitimacy in conflict resolution.

4. India’s Multilateral Principles at Stake

• India has consistently defended:
  • Multilateralism,
  • The primacy of the United Nations,
  • UN reform to reflect Global South realities.
• Joining a US-led forum perceived as bypassing the UN could:
  • Undermine India’s credibility,
  • Weaken its normative leadership among developing countries.

5. The Cost of Staying Out

• Avoiding the Board of Peace is not risk-free.
• India seeks a seat at platforms where:
  • Global security,
  • Conflict resolution,
  • Post-war reconstruction are debated.
• Staying out could mean:
  • Ceding strategic space,
  • Appearing passive as new power structures emerge.

6. The فلسطين–Israel Balancing Act

• India has maintained:
  • Support for a two-state solution and Palestinian rights,
  • Deepening strategic ties with Israel.
• Joining a West-centric, Trump-driven Gaza platform risks:
  • Upsetting this diplomatic balance,
  • Complicating India’s positioning in the Global South.

7. Sharing the Platform with Pakistan

• Pakistan’s reported invitation presents a fresh dilemma.
• Sharing a high-profile forum with Islamabad could:
  • Trigger domestic political backlash,
  • Conflict with India’s stance on engaging with sponsors of terrorism.
• At the same time, staying out could exclude India from discussions affecting India–Pakistan crisis dynamics.

8. Security and Military Red Lines

• Reports suggest Pakistan may offer troops for a Gaza stabilisation force.
• India has ruled out participation in non-UN military missions, reinforcing its preference for:
  • UN-mandated peacekeeping,
  • Multilateral legitimacy over ad hoc coalitions.

A High-Stakes Strategic Choice

India is unlikely to ignore the platform entirely, yet joining carries reputational, diplomatic, and domestic political risks.
The strategic challenge lies in balancing engagement with caution — safeguarding India’s multilateral principles, domestic consensus, and global credibility in a Trump-led geopolitical forum.