he recent establishment of a Board of Peace under US President Donald Trump has raised significant questions regarding the future of the current multilateral world order. The Board, was proposed last year, officially came into effect on January 22 at the World Economic Forum in Davos. At the invitation of the US president, representatives from several countries gathered to sign the charter. They included leaders and representative of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Indonesia and Pakistan. Membership is initially set for three years; permanent membership can be acquired by paying $1 billion.

Some key US allies in Europe, including the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy, have refused to join Trump’s new peace body, largely due to concerns about its legality and the possibility that it could undermine the United Nations. The highly centralised nature of the Board has also raised concerns. President Donald Trump has been designated the permanent chairman of the Board. Its executive board comprises some of Trump’s closest associates, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner and former British prime minister Tony Blair.

The Board of Peace was a part of Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza. The plan proposed the formation of a committee of technocrats to administer the territory and oversee post-war reconstruction. The Board was envisioned as a supervisory body over this committee. The plan also tasked the Board with managing funding for Gaza’s redevelopment. Trump’s plan received UN backing via Resolution 2803 in November 2025. The UN Resolution also referred to the Board as a “transitional administration with international legal personality.”

However, the recently signed charter of the Board presents a different picture then the aims and objectives mentioned in Trump’s original peace plan and subsequently in the UN resolution. Ironically, the charter does not refer to Gaza at all. Instead, it defines its mission as an “organisation that seeks to ensure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” This deviation from the original plan and the rather vague mandate have left many observers questioning the purpose the Board is intended to fulfil, and whether the ambit of the new “peace-building” body may be extended to conflicts beyond Gaza. This ambiguity has also caused apprehension among several global and regional players, prompting them to express hesitation in joining the Board. One such state is India.

India, alongside a number of other countries, did not sign the charter, despite having received the invitation from President Trump. Indian officials said that the country is examining the proposal. Historically, India has navigated its relations with Palestine and Israel in a a calibrated approach. While it supported the Palestinian cause – largely because early Indian governments viewed it as an anti-imperialist struggle akin to their own – its ties with Israel have strengthened over time, resulting in the expansion of economic and military cooperation between the two countries. Consequently, when India abstained from voting on a United Nations General Assembly resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, many experts interpreted that as a clear signal of India’s shifting foreign policy posture.

The charter defines the Board an “organisation that seeks to ensure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” The rather vague mandate has raised the question whether the ambit of the new “peace-building” body may be extended to conflicts beyond Gaza. This has also caused apprehension among several states, including India.

Its reluctance to join the Board apparently stems from a combination of factors, including India’s strategic caution, concern over the organisation’s impartiality and the state of its relations with the US under Donald Trump. Trump’s decision to impose 50 percent tariffs on India, coupled with his role during the India-Pakistan ceasefire in May 2025, has strained Washington’s ties with New Delhi. India is worried about the Board’s highly centralised structure under Donald Trump’s inaugural chairmanship.

Another major concern for India, as highlighted by a range of observers, is the Board’s mandate. Although Trump’s initial plan framed the Board specifically for Gaza, the absence of an explicit reference to Gaza and his remarks at the inauguration about the potential expansion of the Board’s scope, have suggested that over time its mandate could be extended to other conflict zones. This has caused concern in India that the Board could eventually include Kashmir in its policy and operational outreach. Joining it, could, therefore, risk undermining India’s long-standing position that Kashmir is an internal matter and should remain immune to multilateral intervention. India’s concerns are further heightened by the perceived warmth in US-Pakistan ties, which, from India’s perspective, may increase the possibility that a US-backed decision on Kashmir from the platform of this Board could be closer to Pakistan’s position than India’s.

It is interesting to note that many analysts in India are framing the country’s decision not to join the Board as stemming from scepticism that the new body might undermine the multilateral rules-based order by superseding the United Nations. At its core, India’s hesitation is driven more by the fear of losing influence over Jammu and Kashmir than a principled commitment to a multilateral world. India itself has frequently undermined the multilateral order, the recent unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty serving is a notable example of this.

Several crucial questions regarding the Board’s future, its effectiveness and its ability to replace the UN in the years to come remain unaddressed. When asked whether he intended the Board to supplant the UN, President Trump remarked that the latter had not been “very helpful.” However, most scholars have dismissed the possibility of this happening in the near future. Their primary argument is that the Board is highly centralised around Trump as an individual, rather than being institutionally backed by the American congress. The organisation is likely to weaken once the president leaves his office. Additionally, the Board’s structural weaknesses have been widely noted, particularly by the absence of major powers such as China and Russia.

The United Nations has been frequently criticised for its inability to ensure peace – particularly in recent years. However, its mandate as the global body responsible for peace building cannot be dismissed easily. Despite its failures and shortcomings, the world cannot be left without a broadly recognised institution for global peace and security. The more viable path, therefore, lies in introducing reforms to strengthen the existing organisations rather than unilaterally constructing a parallel body with limited legitimacy. As far as the resolution of the lingering issue of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, it ought to be done under the framework of the UN resolutions.

Malik Mashhood is a graduate teaching associate at the Lahore School of Economics.

Dr Ejaz Hussain has a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University and post-doc experience at University of California, Berkeley. He is a DAAD and Fulbright fellow and an associate professor. He can be reached at [email protected]