President Trump's "Board of Peace," announced with fanfare at the World Economic Forum in Davos, has become a diplomatic embarrassment as major European allies declined to join an initiative critics describe as lacking both structure and credibility.
Spain, the United Kingdom, and Canada publicly rejected invitations to participate, with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stating bluntly: "We appreciate the invitation, but we decline." Sánchez cited incompatibility with "the multilateral order, the United Nations' system and with international law."
The board, originally conceived to oversee reconstruction efforts in Gaza following the Israel-Hamas conflict, has expanded in Trump's telling to address global conflicts and crises. Yet the initiative's membership reveals a diplomatic coalition heavy on autocracies and light on established democracies.
Hungary and Bulgaria represent the only European Union members to publicly accept membership. Beyond Europe, participants include Argentina, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Russia and China received invitations but have not committed.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. International peace mechanisms typically emerge through multilateral negotiation, with clear mandates, funding structures, and accountability frameworks. The Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian war, the Camp David agreements between Israel and Egypt, and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland all followed months or years of careful diplomatic groundwork.
The Board of Peace, by contrast, appears to have been announced without such preparation. Foreign ministries across Europe report receiving invitations with minimal detail about the organization's structure, decision-making processes, or funding mechanisms.
"It's not clear what joining even means," one senior European diplomat told reporters on background. "Is this a fund? A forum? A statement of principles? Without answers to basic questions, how do we evaluate membership?"
The Spanish rejection proved particularly pointed. Sánchez noted the board "has not included the Palestinian Authority," questioning how a peace initiative for Gaza could exclude Palestinian representation. The absence of Palestinian participation has drawn criticism from Arab states as well, with Egypt and Jordan notably absent from the membership list despite their crucial roles in previous Middle East peace efforts.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau received and declined an invitation before Trump publicly withdrew it, adding diplomatic confusion to policy disagreement. The rescinded invitation came as Trump continues referring to Canada as "the 51st state," rhetoric that has strained bilateral relations.
The United Kingdom's position proved more diplomatically delicate. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government avoided explicitly rejecting membership, instead declining to commit while expressing concerns about how the board's activities might overlap with or undermine existing UN mechanisms.
French officials, speaking anonymously, characterized the initiative as "American unilateralism dressed up as multilateral cooperation." Paris emphasized continued support for UN-led peace processes and questioned whether the board represents genuine peace-building or political theater.
The membership of Hungary and Bulgaria, both EU members with closer relationships to Russia than Western European allies, raises questions about the board's orientation. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has positioned himself as a potential bridge between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, though his mediation efforts have garnered skepticism from NATO allies.
International relations scholars note that successful peace initiatives require trust among participants and perceived neutrality toward parties in conflict. The Board of Peace, with Israel as a founding member but no Palestinian representation, Saudi Arabia but no Iran, and an open invitation to Russia while supporting Ukraine, appears to lack the balanced representation that characterizes effective mediation.
The initiative also arrives as American credibility as an honest broker faces questions. The Trump administration's recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights during his first term, the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, and recent comments about acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal have raised doubts about American commitment to international borders and sovereignty.
Whether the Board of Peace evolves into a meaningful diplomatic vehicle or remains a symbolic gesture lacking substance will depend on whether it can articulate clear purposes, establish legitimate processes, and attract participation from nations capable of bridging rather than deepening global divisions.
For now, the empty chairs at the table speak louder than the manifesto of those who chose to sit down.
