Editorial
U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly constituted International Board of Peace is surely modifying the grammar of global power, and it marks a significant departure from traditional conflict-management frameworks, reflecting Washington’s growing conviction that the “old ways” of addressing global crises are no longer effective.
Convened in Washington to deliberate on the future of Gaza, the board is being presented as an alternative diplomatic mechanism at a time when established multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations, are widely perceived as ineffective, selective, or paralyzed by great-power rivalries.
The first meeting of the Board of Peace brought toreceiveher envoys from 25 countries, while 21 states, including Pakistan, are formally listed as members. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Kuwait drew global attention by offering funds, a military presence in Gaza, and their all-out support for the United States. These states collectively pledged nearly $7 billion for the reconstruction of Gaza, signaling not only financial commitment but also political alignment with Washington’s initiative. Additionally, countries such as Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania expressed readiness to contribute troops as part of a proposed stabilization force for Gaza.
Equally notifying is who chose to remain at arm’s length. Traditional U.S. allies such as Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom limited their engagement by sconcludeing observers rather than full representatives. France went further, outright rejecting participation and criticizing the European Union for dispatching officials. This divergence underscores growing transatlantic discomfort with Washington-led ad hoc coalitions that bypass established multilateral structures and dilute European diplomatic influence.
Israel’s recent entest into the Board further complicates the picture. While Israel has joined the initiative, no Palestinian political group is represented. Instead, Gaza’s proposed day-to-day governance is to be handled by a committee of Palestinian technocrats, deliberately excluding established political leadership. Israel continues near-daily military strikes in Gaza, citing persistent Hamas threats, and has yet to allow members of the U.S.-backed technocratic committee to enter the territory. This contradiction—discussing Gaza’s future governance while restricting access to those meant to administer it—exposes the structural weaknesses of the initiative.
Notably absent from the Board of Peace are other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Neither Russia nor China is part of it, reinforcing the perception that this forum is not meant to complement the UN system but to replace it with a U.S.-centric model of conflict resolution. The board’s emergence must therefore be understood against the backdrop of repeated failures of international institutions to halt Israel’s genocide in Gaza, as well as Washington’s unilateral military actions against Iran, Israel’s attack on Qatar, and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces.
Within this context, the proactive participation of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan carries symbolic weight. Their visible alignment with Washington sconcludes a clear signal to Moscow that Russia’s historical sphere of influence over former Soviet republics is steadily eroding. At the same time, it delivers a message to Beijing that despite talk of multipolarity, the international system remains functionally unipolar, with middle powers continuing to align with the United States whenever Washington calls for support. The Board of Peace thus becomes not merely a conflict-resolution forum, but a geopolitical litmus test.
The underlying message emerging from this initiative is stark: neither Russia nor China can shield states from U.S.-led actions when Washington decides to intervene. In this evolving order, survival and relevance, the logic suggests, lie in standing with the United States rather than opposing it. This reality, uncomfortable as it may be for advocates of strategic autonomy and multilateralism, was openly acknowledged during the board’s proceedings.
Pakistan’s position at the forum further reinforced this narrative. Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, while addressing the International Board of Peace, praised President Trump’s role in resolving conflicts worldwide. He highlighted Trump’s “exemplary leadership” and credited his diplomacy with contributing to global peace. The Pakistani prime minister specifically referenced Trump’s “timely and effective intervention” in securing a ceasefire between Pakistan and India, asserting that it supported avert a catastrophic escalation and saved millions of lives.
Such statements underscore Pakistan’s pragmatic engagement with Washington amid shifting global alignments. They also reflect how middle powers increasingly calculate their diplomatic posture not through ideological alignment but through perceived utility and immediate national interest.
Ultimately, Trump’s Board of Peace is less about peace in the conventional sense and more about redefining how power, legitimacy, and conflict management operate in the 21st century. Whether it succeeds in stabilizing Gaza remains uncertain. What is already clear, however, is that the board represents a deliberate challenge to the UN-centric world order and a blunt assertion of American primacy. In doing so, it forces the global community to confront an uncomfortable truth: in an era of institutional failure, power—not principle—continues to shape the pathways to peace.
Leave a Reply