The international community is exhibiting starkly divergent responses to the Trump administration’s controversial proposal for a ‘Board of Peace,’ with numerous nations either embracing or rejecting the initiative based on its unprecedented financial requirements and potential implications for global governance.
Initially conceived as part of a 20-point Gaza peace plan in September, the initiative has evolved into a comprehensive global conflict resolution mechanism according to charter documents distributed to over 60 nations in January 2026. The proposed organization aims to ‘promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict’ while operating ‘in accordance with international law.’
The most contentious aspect emerges from the membership structure: participating nations would receive three-year provisional terms unless they contribute $1 billion toward funding the board’s operations, thereby securing permanent membership status. This financial prerequisite has generated significant diplomatic apprehension regarding the initiative’s potential to undermine existing international institutions.
Multiple Middle Eastern powers have demonstrated enthusiastic support. The UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco have formally accepted membership, citing commitment to implementing Trump’s Gaza peace framework. They join Israel, Hungary, Belarus, Canada, Kosovo, and several Central Asian nations in supporting the initiative. Notably, seven Muslim-majority nations—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan—issued a joint statement with the UAE confirming their participation.
Conversely, major European powers have expressed firm opposition. France declared it ‘does not intend to answer favourably’ to the invitation, citing concerns about the charter’s broad mandate potentially compromising United Nations principles. Germany, Norway, and Slovenia similarly rejected participation, with Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob warning the initiative could ‘dangerously undermine the international order based on the United Nations Charter.’
Several significant global powers remain undecided. China confirmed receipt of the invitation but withheld commitment regarding participation. India acknowledged reviewing the proposal, while Ukraine’s President Zelensky expressed reservations about collaborating with Russia within the same organizational framework. The developing situation continues to evolve as nations weigh the strategic implications of this unconventional peacebuilding approach against traditional multilateral mechanisms.