Opinion Best of Both Sides | Joining Gaza Board of Peace will give India a say

Norway, Slovenia and Sweden are reported to have declined. Most West Asian countries, including GCC nations like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain, have accepted, as have some Central Asian republics. Pakistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan are on board. Interestingly, Belarus was among the first, suggesting Putin’s tacit approval.

Among the striking features of the board is that Trump will serve as the inaugural chairman, possibly holding the post beyond his presidential term. Another eye-catching provision is the call for a club-like contribution of US$1 billion to secure “permanent membership” beyond the initial three-year term. Putin is reportedly considering contributing $1 billion from frozen assets for a permanent seat — a condition that may shape Russia’s participation.

Trump’s invitation to Modi reflects recognition of India’s traditional influence in West Asia and credible voice on the global stage. Declining the invitation could be seen as reluctance to engage on a major international issue and may affect future engagement with Trump.

Participation in the board would allow India a greater say in determining Gaza’s future, including potential contracts for Indian companies in reconstruction, while underscoring India’s commitment to Palestinians and regional stability.

Notably, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to join the board after initially objecting to its governance, particularly the inclusion of Turkey and Qatar, which Israel views as hostile or supportive of Hamas. Netanyahu had earlier averred that the executive committee plan contradicted Israeli policy.

The board appears multi-tiered, with an inner “founding executive council” chaired by Trump. PM Modi has been invited to the main board, distinct from this inner circle and the Gaza executive board.

The board is a US-led enterprise, unlike the UN-led processes preferred by Russia, China, and India. When the UNSC approved the board in November 2025, China and Russia abstained. Beijing is likely to view initiatives outside the UN as weakening the UN-led multilateral order and China’s own four global initiatives, including the latest Global Governance Initiative. Abstention on a resolution was no doubt an easier choice than deciding to join.

Self-appointment by a single power of selected countries to manage international disputes sets a troubling precedent, even considering the US’s exceptional military and economic power. India’s past roles, such as chairing the UN-backed Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission (Korea) and the International Commission for Supervision and Control (Vietnam), were embedded in UN-backed frameworks. As for the G20, BRICS and the SCO, they focus on strategic and economic issues, not resolving major disputes such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In taking a decision on participation, Indian policymakers will have to keep in mind what such a Board of Peace implies for other disputes.

Concerns arise from reports that Chairman Trump will wield veto powers as well as the lack of clarity on the fate of the $1 billion contributions. It is a moot question whether a successor US administration would support the board. Its internal dynamics and a disparate membership might add a layer of complexity.

The invitation coincides with the 50 per cent tariffs imposed by the US over India’s energy trade with Russia and threats of further penalties related to Iran. While Trump’s invitation is significant, acceptance does not guarantee either a bilateral trade deal or protection from future geopolitical shocks involving core interests.

India will no doubt respond after careful evaluation. The provisions for representation at the level of a high-ranking official, as well as the exit clause, are welcome attributes.

The writer is director general, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Views are personal