India absent as Trump rolls out his Board of Peace with 19 countries in attendance

By Admin

23 Jan, 2026

Introduction: A high-profile launch amid global hesitation
U.S. President Donald Trump formally inaugurated his ambitious “Board of Peace” on January 22, 2026, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Envisioned as a new international body to maintain a ceasefire in Israel’s war with Hamas and guide post-war governance in Gaza, the initiative has drawn global attention   and noticeable absences. Among the countries not represented at the launch was India, despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi being formally invited.

India’s position: Invitation received, decision pending
India’s absence stood out given its growing global diplomatic footprint. Sources familiar with the matter said India is yet to take a final call on whether to join the Board of Peace. New Delhi has not issued any official statement either endorsing or rejecting the proposal, signalling a cautious approach as the structure, mandate, and geopolitical implications of the board become clearer.

Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were among the countries that accepted the invitation, highlighting a sharp contrast in regional responses.

Who joined and who stayed away
Although Mr. Trump claimed that 59 countries have signed on to the board, representatives from only 19 countries attended the inauguration, along with the United States. Countries that have accepted the invitation include Argentina, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Morocco, Mongolia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

Several key U.S. allies chose not to participate, at least for now. France, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom were notably absent. Meanwhile, countries such as China, Russia, Italy, Greece, Singapore, Ukraine, and Thailand have remained non-committal, reflecting widespread uncertainty about the initiative.

Trump’s vision: A rival or a partner to the UN
Addressing the gathering, Mr. Trump described attendees as “the most powerful people in the world” and insisted the board was not a U.S.-centric body but one “for the world.” He suggested the Board of Peace could eventually rival or even replace certain functions of the United Nations.

However, speaking later on the sidelines of the forum, Mr. Trump adopted a more conciliatory tone, stating that the board would work in conjunction with the UN, even as he criticised the global body for what he described as its failure to effectively resolve conflicts.

Mandate and leadership structure of the board
Originally conceived to oversee governance and coordinate funding for the redevelopment of the Gaza Strip after two years of Israeli military operations, the board’s scope has since expanded. According to its charter, the Board of Peace aims to promote stability, restore lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in conflict-affected regions, advocating “pragmatic judgment” and “common sense solutions” over what it calls failed institutional approaches.

The top tier of the board will consist exclusively of heads of state, operating under Mr. Trump’s leadership, underscoring the centralised nature of the proposed organisation.

Developments on the ground in Gaza
During the event, Ali Shaath, a former Palestinian Authority official from Gaza overseeing the U.S.-backed Palestinian committee for the territory, announced that the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt would open in both directions next week. This move is being seen as an early confidence-building step amid fragile ceasefire efforts.

Yet, the board’s rollout has been overshadowed by other controversies this week, including Mr. Trump’s remarks about seizing Greenland and his subsequent retreat from that stance, raising questions about consistency and focus in U.S. foreign policy.

Conclusion: A bold idea facing global scrutiny
While the Board of Peace represents one of Mr. Trump’s most ambitious foreign policy initiatives, the limited turnout at its launch and the absence of major players like India underline the skepticism surrounding it. As countries weigh participation against strategic interests and institutional credibility, the board’s future relevance will depend on whether it can move beyond rhetoric and deliver tangible results on the ground.