Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ for Gaza Transition and Role of India

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2 –International relation

Introduction

The United States has invited India to join the Donald Trump–led Board of Peace, created to guide the peace process in Gaza. The body was originally approved by the United Nations with a limited mandate. However, within four months, its role expanded through a new charter into a wider international organisation. This change has raised several questions for India and other invited countries.

Background: Origin of the Board of Peace

1. Trump’s 20-point peace plan: In September last year, Donald Trump proposed a 20-point peace plan for Gaza.
2. Temporary transitional governance: The plan proposed placing Gaza under a temporary transitional governance system.
3. Technocratic Palestinian committee: A technocratic and apolitical Palestinian committee was to manage the day-to-day running of public services.
4. Creation of the Board of Peace: This committee was to be supervised by a new international body called the Board of Peace, to be headed by Trump.
5. Early concerns: Many observers pointed out that the arrangement effectively placed the US President in charge of Gaza.

Shift from UN-Approved Mandate to the New Charter

1. Purpose and nature: Under the UN-approved plan, the Board was created only to supervise Gaza’s transitional governance. Under the new charter, it is described as a new international organisation and transitional governing administration.
2. Geographical scope: The UN-approved mandate limited the Board’s role strictly to Gaza. The new charter expands its role beyond Gaza.
3. Time duration: The original mandate was to operate only until the end of 2027. The new charter does not specify any time limit.
4. Membership system: The UN-approved version did not include a formal membership structure. The new charter introduces three-year membership terms.
5. Permanent membership provision: Permanent membership was not part of the original mandate. The new charter allows permanent membership on payment of $1 billion in the first year.
6. Reference to Gaza: Gaza was central to the UN-approved mandate. The new charter does not mention Gaza at all.
7. Scope of action: Earlier, the Board’s role was limited to Gaza’s transition. The new charter states that it will work to secure peace in areas “affected or threatened by conflict,” without defining “threatened.”
8. Approach to institutions: The UN-approved framework functioned within the UN system. The new charter emphasises departing from institutions that have “too often failed.”

Structure, Membership and Governance Framework

1. Charter design: The charter contains 13 articles covering membership rules, financial contributions, and dispute redressal.
2. Three-year membership: Countries accepting the invitation receive membership for three years.
3. Permanent membership option: A country can become a permanent member by paying $1 billion in the first year.
4. Countries invited: Invitations were sent to states across different geopolitical camps, including Hungary, Albania, Greece, Poland, Belarus, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Cyprus, Egypt, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Paraguay, Argentina, Pakistan, and India.
5. Confirmed acceptances: Hungary, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan have announced definite acceptance.
6. Chairmanship: The charter states that Donald J. Trump shall serve as the inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace.
7. Separate US role: Trump will also serve separately as the inaugural representative of the United States.
8. Removal conditions: The chairman can be removed only if he resigns voluntarily or is unanimously declared incapable by the Executive Board.
9. Binding obligation: Membership requires a country to consent to be bound by the charter.

Operational Mechanism and Gaza Governance Framework

1. International Stabilization Force: The peace plan also envisaged an international force to establish security in Gaza, with appointments announced by the White House.
2. Executive Board members: Founding members include Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Tony Blair, Marc Rowan, Ajay Banga, and Robert Gabriel.
3. National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG):

Leadership: The NCAG is to be led by Gaza-born technocrat Dr. Ali Sha’ath.

Functions: It will oversee restoration of core public services, rebuilding of civil institutions, and stabilisation of daily life in Gaza.

Governance objective: The committee is intended to lay the foundation for long-term, self-sustaining governance.

4. High Representative for Gaza:

Appointment: Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov has been appointed High Representative for Gaza.

Role: He will act as the on-the-ground link between the Board of Peace and the NCAG.

5. Gaza Executive Board:

Composition: Members include representatives from the US, UK, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, Cyprus, and the Netherlands.

Absence of Palestinians: No Palestinian representative is included on this board.

Israeli concerns: Israel is reportedly unhappy with the inclusion of figures from Qatar and Turkey.

India’s Invitation and Related Questions

1. Strategic Rationale: India is viewed as a key partner due to its historic ties and credibility with both Israel and Palestine, as well as its strategic partnership with the U.S..
2. India’s official position: India has not yet taken a decision and has made no public statement on whether it will accept the invitation.
3. Consistency with India’s policy: India has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution, calling for a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel as the basis for lasting peace.
4. Strategic assessment: Policy experts note that India must balance humanitarian concerns and global ambitions against reputational, legal, and strategic risks, and may support relief and reconstruction without formally joining the Board.

Conclusion

The Board of Peace has undergone a major transformation from a UN-approved Gaza-specific mechanism into a broader international organisation with global ambitions. Its new charter, governance structure, and membership rules differ sharply from the original mandate. These changes have created uncertainty for countries, including India, that are considering whether to join the body.

Question for practice:

Examine how the transformation of the Trump-led Board of Peace from a UN-approved Gaza-specific mechanism into a broader international organisation has raised institutional and policy challenges for India.

Source: NDTV