By The South Asia Times

DAVOS -  U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday launched his newly formed Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos, pitching the initiative as a post-war reconstruction and stabilization mechanism for Gaza, even as the proposal exposed clear divisions among global powers and traditional Western allies, according to Anadolu report.

Standing alongside a group of leaders who have agreed to participate, Trump framed the board as a practical forum to deliver results where existing mechanisms have struggled, with an initial mandate centered on rebuilding Gaza following months of devastating conflict.

The announcement came as the second phase of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect, bringing a halt to fighting that has killed more than 71,000 people in Gaza since October 2023, according to regional figures. The timing underscored Washington’s effort to shape the post-war phase through a new multilateral structure backed by both regional and non-Western partners.

- Middle Eastern backing, Western caution

The initiative has drawn strong backing from key Middle Eastern and Muslim-majority states, including Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Egypt, Qatar, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates, all of which sent senior representatives or leaders to Davos for the launch.

Trump’s proposal contrasts sharply with the response from much of Europe and North America, where governments have expressed legal, political and institutional concerns. Several Western allies either declined to participate outright or said they remain undecided, citing worries about overlapping mandates with the United Nations and the potential inclusion of Russia.

The Board of Peace is rooted in a 20-point plan proposed by Trump and adopted by the UN Security Council in November 2025, giving the initiative a degree of international legitimacy, though not unanimous backing.

A broad and diverse coalition

Beyond the Middle East, a wide range of countries from Eurasia, Latin America and Asia have agreed to join. Leaders from Argentina, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Mongolia and Vietnam confirmed participation, while Morocco and Bahrain were represented by senior officials.

The presence of such a diverse group highlighted what Trump described as a “new alignment” willing to move quickly on reconstruction and peacebuilding, even as established Western powers remain cautious.

Invitations still under review

Several major players have yet to make final decisions. Russia said it is prepared to contribute financially to the initiative, with President Vladimir Putin signaling readiness to allocate $1 billion, while also raising the issue of frozen Russian assets in discussions with U.S. envoys.

China, Germany, India and Brazil confirmed receiving invitations but said consultations were ongoing. The Vatican acknowledged that Pope Leo XIV had been invited, while Canada adopted a cautious stance before Trump later said he was withdrawing Ottawa’s invitation.

A number of other countries — including Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore and New Zealand, as well as several EU members — have also received invitations but have not publicly stated their positions.

European pushback

Resistance has been most pronounced among European states. The United Kingdom cited concerns over Russia’s possible involvement, while France, Norway and Sweden warned the board could undermine existing UN-based multilateral frameworks. Italy and Slovenia also voiced constitutional and legal reservations while Spain rejected it.

These objections underscore a broader debate over whether Trump’s initiative complements or competes with established international institutions at a moment when the global system is already under strain.

A contested path forward

Despite the mixed reception, Trump insisted the Board of Peace would move ahead with those willing to participate, arguing that reconstruction in Gaza cannot wait for universal consensus. Supporters say the inclusion of regional powers and countries from the Global South gives the initiative credibility and balance, while critics fear it could dilute international norms.

As ceasefire efforts hold and attention shifts toward rebuilding Gaza, the success or failure of the Board of Peace may ultimately hinge on whether it can bridge the gap between political ambition and multilateral legitimacy in an increasingly fragmented world.