INDIA JOIN TRUMP’S BOARD OF PEACE: STRATEGIC BALANCING OR DIPLOMATIC NECESSITY?

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:  INDIANEXPRESS

Context

India participated as an "observer" in the inaugural meeting of the US-led "Board of Peace" initiative, reflecting a balanced foreign policy choice regarding global conflicts like the Gaza crisis.

What is the 'Board of Peace' Initiative? 

It is a US-led multilateral forum, chaired by US President Donald Trump, initially proposed to address the war in Gaza, and its mandate has since expanded to the broader goal of "resolving global conflict."

Origin: The Board was announced after UN Security Council Resolution 2803 supported a specific Gaza peace plan. Its broad mandate, however, has raised concerns that it may operate as a parallel power structure to the United Nations.

Financial Commitments: The inaugural meeting secured financial pledges totaling $17 billion for relief and stability efforts ($7 billion from members and $10 billion from the US).

Core Structure and Leadership

• Chairman for Life: Donald Trump is explicitly named in the charter as the Chairman of the Board, with the sole authority to invite members, appoint his successor, and veto all decisions.
• Executive Board: A high-level group focused on diplomacy and investment, including World Bank President.
• Gaza Executive Board: Tasked with the day-to-day administration of Gaza.

Mission and Funding

• Reconstruction: The board aims to rebuild Gaza with a "New Gaza" vision, including massive infrastructure projects estimated at over $100 billion.
• Security: Authorization of a 20,000-strong International Stabilization Force (ISF). Countries like Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania have pledged troops.
• Financial Pledges: At the inaugural meeting in February 2026, Trump pledged $10 billion from the U.S., with another $7 billion committed by nine member states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.
• "Pay-to-Play" Membership: Countries must pay US$1 billion into a fund controlled by Trump to secure a permanent seat; otherwise, they serve renewable three-year terms. 

Composition

The body has a two-tier structure:

• Full Members (27): Includes key West Asian nations like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Israel, along with US allies and Pakistan.
• Observers (22): Includes major powers cautious about the initiative, such as India, the UK, Germany, Japan, and the EU.

Why India Choose ‘Observer’ Status Instead of Full Membership?

India's decision to accept 'Observer Status' for the proposed 'Board of Peace,' instead of full membership, is a calculated diplomatic move rooted in several key strategic considerations:

Upholding UN Centrality and Strategic Autonomy

• The UN's Role: India supports the United Nations as the primary and legitimate global forum for peace and security.
• Avoiding Endorsement of a Parallel Framework: The 'Board of Peace' lacks Russia, China, and France (key UNSC members). Full membership risked India validating a UN-bypassing body. Observer status maintains India's UN commitment while recognizing the US initiative.

Defensive Diplomacy and Countering Pakistan

• Mitigating Anti-India Narratives: With Pakistan as a full member, India's complete absence would have provided an unmonitored platform for hostile narratives.
• Intelligence and Preemption: Observer status gives India a vital monitoring role, allowing it to preemptively counter any attempt by Pakistan or the US to introduce the Kashmir issue onto the Board's agenda.

Balancing Critical Ties with the US

• Economic and Technological Interests: The US is India's largest trading partner with bilateral trade reaching around $132.2 billion in FY25. Cooperation spans new trade pacts and critical technologies like AI.
• Avoiding Diplomatic Slight: Rejecting the invitation risked alienating Washington. Observer status signals engagement and cooperation, protecting vital economic and technological ties without full commitment.

Navigating Geopolitical Uncertainty and Flexibility

• Long-Term Viability Concerns: The Board's close ties to the current US President's agenda raise doubts about its permanence and future.
• Maintaining an Exit Strategy: Full membership means binding commitments to a potentially controversial or short-lived platform. Observer status gives India a strategic "off-ramp," limiting exposure and preserving flexibility if the Board's objectives clash with national interests.

What are the Implications for India’s West Asia Policy?

Stability in West Asia is paramount for India's energy security and connectivity projects. Participating in the Board allows India to remain engaged in the region's evolving security architecture.

The IMEC Connection: The revival of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) depends on peace in the region and the normalization of relations between Israel and key Arab states. A successful Gaza peace process is a direct prerequisite for IMEC's progress.

Maintaining a Delicate Balance: India supports a "Two-State Solution" for Palestine while also deepening its strategic partnership with Israel. The observer role allows India to support the peace process from a distance without getting entangled in polarized direct negotiations.

What Challenges Does the ‘Board of Peace’ Pose to Global Governance?

Fragmentation of Multilateralism

The absence of Russia and China, and the "observer" status of major European powers, indicates a fractured global order. If the Board acts unilaterally, it could weaken the binding nature of UN resolutions.

Mission Creep

While the Board started with Gaza, its expanded mandate to "global conflict" is vague. There is an apprehension that the US might use this body to intervene in other regional disputes (e.g., South China Sea or Kashmir) without the consensus required in the UNSC.

Legitimacy vs Effectiveness

While the Board has secured financial pledges ($17 billion), its political legitimacy remains contested. Without the backing of the Global South and all P5 members, its decisions may lack durability.

Way Forward For India 

Vigilantly Monitoring the Mandate: Actively oppose any "mission creep" that seeks to include bilateral issues like Kashmir on the Board's agenda.

Leveraging Parallel Initiatives: Separate economic cooperation, such as through "Pax Silica," from the Board's potentially controversial geopolitical actions.

Championing Multilateralism: Coordinate with other observer nations and leaders of the Global South to ensure that such new forums complement, rather than cannibalize, the existing UN framework.

Conclusion 

India's "observer" status at the Board of Peace is a move of Realpolitik, balancing economic and security interests with a commitment to UN multilateralism.

Source: INDIANEXPRESS