India is one of 60 countries the US has invited to join President Donald Trump’s controversial “Board of Peace” initiative on Gaza. The contours of the board’s aims and objectives are shrouded in mist, doubt and vagueness that seems to have put Indian diplomacy under stress. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) is running short of vision in any case so this would prove very baffling to the officers. This timing also makes it all the more difficult for India to decide whether to respond or not to the invite. That is why the MEA has not yet said a word on the government’s official position on the offer.
In fact, the proposal far extends beyond the borders of Gaza and as such it has sparked a global debate on the future of the post-World War II international order, particularly the relevance and authority of the UN Security Council (UNSC). Trump appears to be trying to hijack the UNSC and form a new comity of nations to intervene in international conflicts on his own terms. The whole plan appears to be designed to sideline the UN and establish what critics describe as a parallel international body with ambitions extending far beyond the Palestinian enclave. The initiative emerges from a group of Islamic countries-backed Trump’s peace plan for Gaza and coincides with broader US efforts to restructure global governance outside traditional multilateral institutions, especially the UN. The purpose is ostensibly to supervise Gaza’s transitional governance, stabilisation, reconstruction and oversee a temporary technocratic, apolitical Palestinian administration. Its ambit also appears to manage funding for redevelopment until the Palestinian Authority (PA) completes institutional reforms. But, effectively, Trump seeks to expand this Gaza-specific mechanism into a global conflict-resolution template. The UNSC Resolution 2803 authorised a Board to supervise Gaza’s transition until 2027. Russia and China abstained, but the countries of the Global South voted for it.
Critics of the move say the Board of Peace undermines UN Charter principles, sovereign equality of states and collective decision-making. They view it as an attempt to sidestep the UNSC and concentrate authority in the US-led executive body. Their fears are strengthened by Trump’s known aversion to multilateral intervention in international issues. The US under him has already withdrawn from UNESCO, WHO and over 60 other international organisations. If the plan succeeds, the UN would be divested of funds, legitimacy and importance as a global body tasked with maintaining peace and human welfare. The US has already indicated it will ask nations willing to get permanent membership of the body to contribute $1 billion dollars each. The draft charter reveals that Trump would chair the board and hold authority over membership decisions and approvals. Daniel Forti, who heads UN affairs at the International Crisis Group, sharply reacted to the US plan which, he says, is “a US shortcut in an attempt to wield its veto power on world affairs.” European countries are also perturbed by the development, though so far only the French President Emmanuel Macron has categorically stated he would not be in it. This has evoked a stinging response from Trump who said Macron would cave in once the US imposes high tariffs on French champagne and perfumes. If the UN is rendered irrelevant, India’s long-term push for inclusion in the UNSC will receive a setback.
Moreover, India’s dilemma is how to stick to its stated position of a two-state solution to the vexed Palestine-Israel question once it is in the Trump-controlled board. It is a tall order for it to engage diplomatically without endorsing erosion of UN authority and maintain distinction between political oversight and military involvement. Because of its muddled foreign policy India is in an unenviable position to balance ties with the US while safeguarding its principled positions. Trump appears to have deliberately taken a tough stand against France to force it to join the board and send out the message across countries hesitant to go with him that disapproval of his plan would bring in its train fresh raft of tariffs and other punitive actions. These are indications of the future of the US brokering for peace. Let no one think that these are Trump’s personal game plans. When Trump’s term ends after 4 years, the new PoTUS too probably would be compelled to walk along these same paths.