‘The system’s power comes not from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source…For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability… We knew that the story of international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law would be applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim…’
– Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada’s Davos Speech
This week, in the Halls of Davos, a new ghost from the past emerged. This time, it was Canada, one of the few nations that long believed in the sanctity of international law, that the world listened to. But for India, Canadian PM Mark Carney’s admission is not something it did not already know. For us, it was more of a warning for a new, even more precarious invitation: US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace.
The Board is being marketed as the ‘institutional centrepiece’ to end the Gaza conflict. To many in New Delhi, it looks like a seat at the high table or, to a few, even more ‘construction contracts’ in Gaza’s reconstruction. However, in reality, it is a corporate shell company masquerading as a diplomatic mission, and for India, joining it would be a strategic blunder.
A Corporate Governance Model
If one closely observes ‘The Board of Peace’s’ architecture, one will see how explicitly it is ‘corporate in nature’. It features a three-tier power structure that places President Trump at the apex as Chairman for Life, holding an absolute veto even after potential resignation or incapacity. While some suggest it has the capability to take over the United Nations, I do not. In the United Nations, diplomacy played an important role. While here, this isn’t diplomacy; it is a ‘pay-to-play’ model with its own legal personality.
The Board would essentially insulate itself from the oversight of any international law or organisation. It will operate as a sovereign private equity firm, where the ‘reconstruction of Gaza’ is viewed not as a humanitarian necessity but as a ‘beautiful piece of property’ with an infrastructure to scale.
Furthermore, at the heart of this plan lies a comprehensive plan to end the Gaza conflict and present it as a regional stabilisation mechanism. Through this body, it is proposed to advance an alternative to the United Nations – an ambition which is sweeping and troubling in itself. The United Nations has framed diplomacy; this is more of a deliberate move to bypass an already established multilateral organisation rather than reform it.
Furthermore, this proposed “Board of Peace” is designed to operate under a three-tier power structure that privileges private-sector logic over democratic deliberation. At its apex sits the Board of Peace itself, vested with sweeping strategic authority, including exclusive power to interpret and implement its own charter. This concentration of authority effectively removes any meaningful system of checks and balances.
Beneath it lies the Gaza Executive Board, responsible for ground-level coordination, followed by the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a technocratic Palestinian body tasked with managing day-to-day governance. While this layered structure is presented as efficient, it is, in reality, profoundly top-heavy—designed to centralise power rather than distribute it.
Crucially, Donald Trump would retain absolute veto authority within this framework, including unilateral control over membership decisions and renewals. While members of his broader team would focus on international legitimacy-building and diplomatic outreach, ultimate authority would remain firmly personalised. This is not multilateral peacebuilding in the traditional sense; it is a corporate governance model transposed onto international conflict resolution, with a single dominant stakeholder exercising decisive control.
The Ghost of East India Company
For a nation that has spent two hundred years under the British Raj, the rhetoric surrounding the ‘Board of Peace’ sounds familiar. The British Raj also justified its presence and presented itself as a stabiliser, a civiliser, and a guarantor of order. Similarly, Trump’s vision for Gaza ignores a fundamental pillar of consent. In our own history, we have seen how colonising states have justified their presence by promising ‘development’ while stripping away our autonomy.
To say the least, Gaza should be a mix of Arab countries coming together, rather than a board, which dictates the future of a nation ravaged by war. Furthermore, I believe that India should have no business being part of this kind of ‘Marshall’ plan, which treats human suffering as a real estate investment. Moreover, when it comes to post-conflict development, has the United States actually achieved it? Libya, Afghanistan, and Vietnam are some of the instances wherein the United States has entered the conflict but left it without any improvement.
Lessons of Dealing with Trump
Treating peace as a ‘transaction’ breeds distrust. The so-called model at heart should definitely set off alarms. It is fundamentally hostile to the principles of sovereignty and equality, which India as a country has long upheld. Yes, India is invited to join, but this label has been shared with many other countries across the globe.
Many in our strategic circles argue that participation could benefit Indian companies through contracts and reconstruction opportunities. That is a dangerously narrow way of looking at the issue. This is not a question of money. It is a question of India’s constitutional memory, its strategic autonomy, and the moral credibility it has built since independence—credibility that stands in sharp contrast to the Trump Administration.
Since independence, we have seen that India’s worldview has been shaped by our colonial experiences. History shows us that colonising powers rarely speak of consent; they speak of efficiency, order, and opportunity. Gaza should not be rebuilt by diktat, and India has no business legitimising arrangements that resemble a modern-day Marshall Plan without political agency for the people concerned. India today stands at an important historical crossroads. We have always engaged with all major powers—but we have done so without becoming an instrument of any one of them. That distinction matters.
First, this recent experience should also temper any enthusiasm. During Operation Sindoor in May 2025, following a cross-border terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir that killed 26 civilians, India carried out precision strikes against terrorist and military targets in Pakistan. While both sides later announced a ceasefire following the Pakistani DGMO’s call, President Trump repeatedly claimed credit for “brokering peace”. This did not sit well with New Delhi.
The Ministry of External Affairs categorically rejected any third-party mediation; they made it clear that the ceasefire resulted from direct military-to-military communication. This does not go well with the Indian Administration. Indian officials, especially the MEA, have consistently and categorically denied any third-party mediation. Against this backdrop, India joining a US-led “Board of Peace”, especially one that operates transactionally and includes Pakistan, Turkey, and Qatar, should give us serious pause.
Second, participation would strike at the core pillars of Indian foreign policy. India has consistently stood by the United Nations, even while calling for its reform. We have believed in rule-based multilateralism and the principle of non-interference, even when the system has been imperfect. The US’ increasing normalisation of unilateralism—from Venezuela to elsewhere—should not become a precedent India helps legitimise.
Third, on the issue of Palestine and Israel, India has historically maintained a careful balance, grounded in its belief that a two-state solution remains viable. Even during the current conflict, India has provided humanitarian assistance and engaged all parties. The “Board of Peace”, by contrast, reflects the alignment of certain Gulf powers—the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, among others. That alignment is their choice. It is not India’s obligation. India does not need symbolic seats at corporate-style peace tables. What it needs is to remain faithful to its own strategic culture—independent, principled, and rooted in hard-earned historical experience. Joining this board would undermine all three.
Fourth, this will challenge the core fundamentals of the pillars of Indian foreign policy, particularly our commitment to the United Nations and the principle of non-interference. While we have long championed a reformed, rule-based order, which has been centred around the UN. Even if it doesn’t work, India has always found a way of ‘doing the bare minimum’. Joining this Board would also set a dangerous precedent, one that the Trump administration has already been normalising through its unilateral actions, including in Venezuela.
India should not contribute to the further erosion of multilateral norms. Historically, India has maintained a balanced position on the Palestine-Israel question, rooted in its belief that a two-state solution remains viable.
Even during the current conflict, India has consistently provided humanitarian assistance and engaged with all parties. By contrast, this initiative reflects a strategic alignment among certain Gulf powers, one in which India has no direct stake. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other countries have accepted invitations to join the Board. That is their sovereign decision. It need not, and should not, be India’s.
Resisting the Orwellian Nightmare
As Mark Carney noted, the old system was a performance. But Trump’s “Board of Peace” is a different beast entirely: it is an Orwellian nightmare that replaces the hypocrisy of the old world with the naked coercion of the new one. Instead, by being out, India will anyway retain its ability to extend humanitarian assistance, without any political compulsion or any such institutional engagement. It will help India navigate this period with flexibility and credibility, which it has built over the years.
While memberships impose unavoidable diplomatic burdens, this ‘Board of Peace’ would face the challenge of competing regional powers and managing power asymmetries, which could become liabilities rather than assets in the region. As this is a space where geoeconomics, deterrence, and realpolitik converge, with outcomes shaped less by consensus and more by leverage.
The deeper irony of the Trumpian approach lies in its attempt to enforce alignment through coercion and transactional bargains. History suggests that such strategies do not often produce stability; they often deepen fragmentation. States that have yielded to this plan are already accepting Trump’s agenda, but only time will tell if this ‘Orwellian Nightmare’ will accelerate the already fractured global order or an outcome that unites countries for legitimate ‘post-conflict’ redevelopment.
(Arpan A Chakravarty is an independent researcher focusing on international law and security. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)
End of Article
