Former US President Donald Trump has announced the creation of a new international body, the Board of Peace, which he will personally chair. Initially envisioned as a compact group of world leaders to supervise the Gaza ceasefire agreement, the project has rapidly expanded in scope and ambition.
Expanding Role and Global Invitations
Mr Trump has sent out invitations to dozens of countries across the globe, suggesting the board could evolve into a broader conflict mediation forum. This initiative is being positioned as an alternative or supplementary mechanism to existing international bodies, drawing comparisons to a pseudo-United Nations Security Council in its potential influence.
Confirmed Participants in the Peace Board
A significant number of nations have accepted the invitation to join this new diplomatic venture. The confirmed list of participating countries includes:
- Argentina
- Albania
- Armenia
- Azerbaijan
- Bahrain
- Belarus
- Bulgaria
- Egypt
- Hungary
- Indonesia
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kosovo
- Morocco
- Mongolia
- Pakistan
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Turkey
- United Arab Emirates
- Uzbekistan
- Vietnam
Nations Considering Their Position
Several important global players have received invitations but have not yet committed to joining the board. These countries remain noncommittal and are likely weighing diplomatic and strategic considerations. The list includes:
- Cambodia
- China
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Germany
- Greece
- India
- Italy
- The European Union's executive arm
- Paraguay
- Russia
- Singapore
- Thailand
- Ukraine
Countries Declining Participation
A notable group of nations, including several key Western allies, have explicitly declined to join the Board of Peace at this time. These countries have chosen not to participate in Mr Trump's initiative, at least for the present moment. The nations that will not be joining include:
- France
- Norway
- Slovenia
- Sweden
- United Kingdom
In a statement regarding the board's authority, Donald Trump remarked that the Gaza Board of Peace can 'do pretty much whatever we want', indicating a flexible approach to its mandate and operations. The development raises significant questions about why certain nations, including Britain, have shown reluctance to engage with this new diplomatic framework.
