Why in News?
Launch of a New Peace Architecture
- Donald Trump inaugurated the “Board of Peace” at the World Economic Forum, Davos (2026) to oversee ceasefire management in Israel–Gaza, projecting it as a potential alternative to existing global institutions.
Relevance
- GS Paper 1: Post–Cold War world order, changing nature of global institutions, geopolitical realignments in West Asia.
- GS Paper 2: UN reforms, multilateral institutions, India’s foreign policy, international peace and security, role of global governance mechanisms.
Key Features of the Board of Peace
Composition and Participation
- The U.S. claims 59 countries have signed on, but representatives from only 19 countries attended the launch, indicating a significant credibility and participation gap.
Countries Participating and Absent
- Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, UAE accepted the invitation.
- India, despite an invite to Narendra Modi, was not present and is yet to take a formal decision.
Immediate Geopolitical Context
Israel–Gaza Ceasefire Management
- The Board’s first mandate is overseeing the ceasefire in Gaza, with a U.S.-supervised Palestinian governance committee announced for the territory.
Rafah Border Development
- Announcement of Rafah border crossing reopening between Gaza and Egypt next week signals U.S. intent to directly manage humanitarian and political transitions.
Strategic Intent Behind the Initiative
Parallel Multilateralism
- Trump projected the Board as “for the world, not the U.S.”, explicitly suggesting it could rival the United Nations if successful.
Erosion of UN-Centric Conflict Resolution
- The initiative reflects dissatisfaction with UN-led mechanisms, particularly on Middle East conflicts, and signals a shift towards U.S.-centric, coalition-based peace enforcement.
Structural and Legitimacy Concerns
Absence of Universal Representation
- Limited physical participation undermines claims of global legitimacy, especially when major democracies and UN stakeholders remain cautious or absent.
Lack of Legal Mandate
- Unlike the UN Security Council, the Board lacks:
- Treaty-based authority
- Universal membership
- Clearly defined enforcement or accountability mechanisms
Implications for Global Governance
Fragmentation of Multilateral Order
- Creation of ad-hoc bodies outside established frameworks risks weakening international norms, encouraging forum-shopping and selective multilateralism.
Precedent for Power-Based Peace Architecture
- Peacekeeping risks shifting from rule-based internationalism to power-driven arrangements, privileging geopolitical alignment over neutrality.
India’s Strategic Calculus
Reasons for Indian Caution
- India’s absence reflects:
- Commitment to UN-centric multilateralism
- Strategic autonomy and avoidance of polarising blocs
- Concerns over legitimacy, mandate, and precedent
Alignment with India’s Global Posture
- India has consistently argued for UN reforms, not parallel institutions, and supports inclusive, rules-based global governance rather than personality-driven initiatives.
Regional and Middle East Dynamics
Arab Participation Signals
- Acceptance by Saudi Arabia and UAE suggests regional pragmatism, prioritising stability and humanitarian access over institutional purity.
Risks of Externalised Governance
- U.S.-supervised political arrangements in Gaza raise concerns over sovereignty, local legitimacy, and long-term conflict resolution sustainability.
Comparison with Existing Global Institutions
UN vs Board of Peace
- UN: Universal membership, legal mandate, peacekeeping experience, normative legitimacy.
- Board of Peace: Limited participation, no treaty base, executive-driven, politically selective.
Way Forward and Global Implications
Need for Institutional Clarity
- For credibility, the Board would require:
- Clear legal basis
- Transparent decision-making
- Complementarity with UN processes rather than substitution
India’s Likely Approach
- India may engage selectively and issue-based, while continuing to emphasise reform and strengthening of existing multilateral institutions.
Core Takeaway
- The Board of Peace reflects growing stress on post-war multilateralism, but without legitimacy, inclusiveness, and rule-based authority, it risks deepening fragmentation rather than delivering durable peace.
