In a high-profile move at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. President Donald Trump launched the controversial Board of Peace — an ambitious international initiative aimed initially at overseeing a ceasefire and post-war transition in Gaza and potentially expanding into broader global conflict resolution efforts. However, several of America’s closest allies, particularly in Western Europe and other traditional partners, have notably kept their distance or declined to participate — a response that reflects deep geopolitical, institutional, and strategic concerns.
What Is the ‘Board of Peace’?
The Board of Peace is a Trump-spearheaded body conceived as a platform to secure and manage peace processes, starting with the Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza. Trump’s vision, articulated during the signing ceremony, casts the board as a potential alternative or supplement to established institutions like the United Nations, which he has previously criticized for inefficiency.
Trump invited dozens of world leaders to join, saying the board could eventually address other global hotspots once the Gaza mandate succeeds. Yet key global powers and traditional U.S. partners have been cautious or non-committal about formal involvement.
Western Allies Hesitate: Concerns Over Mandate and UN Role
One primary reason major U.S. allies are reluctant to embrace the initiative is fear that the Board of Peace could undermine the United Nations’ established role in global diplomacy and conflict resolution. Countries such as France, Norway, and Sweden have publicly indicated they will not participate, despite supporting peace efforts in Gaza. French officials, for instance, stressed they back the broader peace plan but are wary of joining a body that might supplant the UN framework.
European capitals have displayed skepticism about the board’s legal foundation, scope, and governance structure. Diplomatic sources in Brussels described the initiative as lacking clear institutional safeguards, defined rules, and accountability mechanisms — features traditionally embedded in multilateral organizations like the UN. Such ambiguity limits European governments’ willingness to commit, especially when participation could imply endorsing an alternative to existing international systems.
Geopolitical Tensions and Strategic Reservations
The timing of the board’s launch and broader transatlantic tensions have compounded hesitancy among U.S. allies. Recent disputes — such as trade and tariff disagreements with Europe — have frayed trust and made collaborative ventures on broad geopolitical initiatives more complicated. Analysts note that disagreements over policy direction and diplomatic priorities have contributed to a more cautious stance from Western partners.
Many allied countries are also reluctant to be seen as aligning with a U.S.-led body that some perceive as politically driven or heavily shaped by American interests. The Board of Peace’s proposed structure, including financial commitments and broad mandates, has led observers to liken membership to a “pay-to-play” model — a comparison that further dampens enthusiasm among allies wary of ceding diplomatic influence or autonomy.
Divergent Visions on the Middle East and Gaza
Another factor behind the distance taken by key allies is the divergent geopolitical interests and strategic visions regarding Gaza and the broader Middle East. While the Board of Peace focuses on securing a ceasefire and post-conflict governance under a U.S.-shaped mandate, some European and Western countries prefer solutions rooted in long-standing multilateral diplomacy and agreements anchored in international law and the UN Charter. This divergence reflects differing assessments of what constitutes effective and legitimate mechanisms for peace.
Who Has Joined — and Who Hasn’t
Despite notable allied hesitations, the board’s launch did attract participation from several states — including some key Muslim-majority nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, as well as Israel. These participants have joined largely due to shared regional interests or pragmatic considerations tied to influence over Gaza’s future governance.
However, major Western powers and traditional U.S. partners — including France, Canada, the United Kingdom, and others within the European Union — either declined to participate or have so far not committed to joining. This lack of broad Western endorsement highlights the limits of Trump’s diplomatic reach on global peace initiatives outside Washington’s immediate circle.
Implications for U.S. Diplomacy
The mixed global response to the Board of Peace launch underscores several broader trends in current international relations:
-
Erosion of trust in U.S. leadership models among traditional Western allies.
-
Continued loyalty to multilateral institutions like the UN as central forums for conflict resolution.
-
Geopolitical fragmentation, where regional powers forge independent strategies that may not align with U.S.-centric frameworks.
-
Growing scrutiny of initiatives perceived as lacking transparency, institutional grounding, or legitimacy on the world stage.
The careful distance maintained by key U.S. allies — especially within Europe — reflects a broader recalibration of global diplomatic alignment at a time of shifting geopolitical priorities. As the Board of Peace seeks to define its role beyond Gaza, its long-term impact will depend on whether it can broaden its appeal and build trust among the world’s major diplomatic actors.
