United States President Donald Trump on Thursday formally signed the charter of his proposed Trump Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The move has triggered fresh debate on global governance, as major world powers remain absent while some smaller states, including Pakistan, have joined.
While signing the documents, Trump said the new body would work “in conjunction” with the United Nations, arguing that the UN has failed to use its full potential. However, the absence of key global powers has raised questions about the credibility and intent of the initiative.
Leaders from 19 countries were present at the signing ceremony. Among them was Pakistan, which formally endorsed the charter. In contrast, India chose to stay out, adopting a wait-and-watch approach.
Absence of Major Powers Raises Global Questions
Notably, no permanent member of the UN Security Council, apart from the United States, has joined Trump’s Board of Peace. Countries such as Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom remain outside the framework. Moreover, none of the G7 nations have signed on so far.
This lack of participation has strengthened concerns that the initiative may struggle for legitimacy. Analysts also see the development as an attempt to create a parallel structure that could dilute the UN’s authority in conflict resolution.
Although Trump insisted that the board would complement existing institutions, the charter allows it to challenge or override current international frameworks. Consequently, several governments view the proposal with caution.
The situation becomes more complex as the board’s stated objectives include post-conflict reconstruction, humanitarian relief, and governance oversight. Such roles traditionally fall within the UN system.
Why India Is Holding Back
India is among nearly 60 countries invited to join the Trump Board of Peace. However, New Delhi has not yet committed to the initiative. Diplomatic sources suggest India is carefully assessing the long-term implications before taking a final call.
One key concern involves the board’s potential to undermine the UN, where India has consistently advocated reform rather than replacement. Moreover, India is closely observing the stance of its strategic partners, including France and Russia, both of which remain undecided.
Experts also point out ambiguity within the charter. While the board reportedly aims to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction, the document does not explicitly mention Gaza. This omission has added to India’s hesitation.
Additionally, Trump’s continued position as chairman, without a clear exit mechanism, has raised governance concerns. For India, transparency and multilateral consensus remain critical factors in any global initiative.
What Is Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’?
Trump announced the formation of the Board of Peace on January 15 as part of phase two of his 20-point peace plan. The plan was presented as being aligned with a UN Security Council resolution focused on post-conflict stabilisation.
The board aims to oversee demilitarisation, humanitarian assistance, and infrastructure rebuilding in conflict-hit regions. It also proposes a technocratic governance model for Gaza through a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.
The executive committee includes high-profile figures such as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Other members include special envoy Steve Witkoff, World Bank president Ajay Banga, billionaire Marc Rowan, and adviser Robert Gabriel.
Pakistan Joins as India Waits
Pakistan’s decision to sign the charter has drawn attention in South Asia. Islamabad described its participation as support for peace and reconstruction efforts in conflict zones.
However, India’s cautious stance reflects its broader foreign policy approach. New Delhi prefers inclusive multilateral platforms and remains wary of initiatives that bypass established global institutions.
As debates continue, the Trump Board of Peace faces a credibility test. Its future may depend on whether major global powers decide to join or continue to stay away.