Why in News?

• The U.S. President Donald Trump invited India to join the proposed Board of Peace for Gaza, a new governance and conflict-management mechanism.
• The initiative emerges from a group of Islamic countries backed Trump’s peace plan for Gaza and coincides with broader U.S. efforts to restructure global governance outside traditional multilateral institutions, especially the United Nations (UN).
• The proposal has triggered a global debate on the future of the post-World War II international order, particularly the relevance and authority of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Board of Peace for Gaza
• India’s Position
• Broader Global Governance Debate
• Key Challenges and Way Ahead
• Conclusion

Board of Peace for Gaza:

• Purpose and mandate:
  • To supervise Gaza’s transitional governance, stabilisation, and reconstruction.
  • To oversee a temporary technocratic, apolitical Palestinian administration.
  • To manage funding for redevelopment until the Palestinian Authority (PA) completes institutional reforms.
  • Trump now seeks to expand this Gaza-specific mechanism into a global conflict-resolution template.
• Composition and leadership:
  • Chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump, its members include select invited countries and global leaders (e.g., Tony Blair).
  • It will operate as an invitation-only body, not based on universal membership.
• UN linkage:
  • UNSC Resolution 2803 authorised a Board to supervise Gaza’s transition until 2027.
  • Russia and China abstained, but the countries of the Global South voted for it.

India’s Position:

• Current status: India has received the invitation but has not formally responded. Pakistan has also been invited.
• India’s stated principles:
  • Consistent support for a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine coexisting).
  • India welcomed the first phase of Trump’s peace plan, especially release of hostages, and enhanced humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
• On military involvement: The U.S. is seeking troops for a temporary International Stabilisation Force (ISF). India has clearly ruled out participation, as ISF is not a UN peacekeeping mission.

Broader Global Governance Debate:

• Challenge to the UN system:
  • Critics argue the Board of Peace undermines UN Charter principles, sovereign equality of states, and collective decision-making.
  • It is seen as an attempt to sidestep the UNSC and concentrate authority in the U.S.-led executive body.
• Trump’s multilateral skepticism:
  • Because of the continuation of Trump’s long-standing approach. For example, withdrawal from UNESCO, WHO; exit from over 60 international organisations.
  • Aligned with Project 2025 (the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Trump’s second term), which called for sharp reductions in multilateral commitments and a preference for ad hoc coalitions where the US sets the agenda.
• From Gaza to global template:
  • Trump aims to transform the Board into a general crisis-management club.
  • It is framed as a solution to UNSC paralysis, especially veto politics.
  • It risks diverting funds, legitimacy, and attention away from the UN if successful.

Key Challenges and Way Ahead:

• For global order:
  • Erosion of multilateralism and UN centrality. Rise of exclusive, power-driven governance mechanisms. Undermining rules-based international order.
• For India:
  • Tension between commitment to reformed multilateralism, and pragmatic engagement with the U.S.-led initiatives.
  • Risk of legitimising a system that weakens India’s long-term push for UNSC reform, and marginalises voices of the Global South.
• India’s options:
  • Calibrated engagement: Engage diplomatically without endorsing erosion of UN authority. Maintain distinction between political oversight and military involvement.
  • Defend UN-centric multilateralism: Reiterate support for UNSC-authorised mechanisms. Resist normalisation of extra-UN security architectures.
  • Strategic autonomy: Balance ties with the U.S. while safeguarding India’s principled positions. Coordinate with like-minded countries of the Global South.
  • Push for UN reform: Use the crisis to highlight urgency of UNSC reform, not its bypassing.

Conclusion:

• The invitation to India to join the Board of Peace for Gaza places New Delhi at a critical crossroads in global diplomacy.
• While the initiative promises flexibility and decisiveness in conflict management, it also represents a fundamental challenge to the UN-led multilateral order that India has long defended.
• As global governance enters a phase of extraordinary flux, it tests India’s ability to balance principle with pragmatism in an evolving world order.