By benadeta mwaura - Reporter
Kenya, January 22, 2026 - U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a global diplomatic initiative called the “Board of Peace”, aimed at bringing countries together to manage and resolve major international conflicts, starting with the Gaza war. But the idea has sparked controversy, with some major allies declining to participate, notably the United Kingdom, and the broader context of Greenland and Arctic security helping shape divisions in the Western alliance.
What Is the Board of Peace?
According to the initiative’s founding charter circulated by the White House, the Board of Peace is a new international body intended to coordinate peacebuilding, reconstruction and stabilisation in conflict zones. Its mandate goes beyond the original focus on Gaza, with language that could allow expansion into other conflicts.
Trump chairs the Board personally and names other executive members, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, giving the initiative an unusual blend of U.S. administration officials and private actors with influence.
Member states are invited to join for three-year terms, or to gain permanent status by contributing $1 billion to the Board’s activities, a controversial feature that has drawn comparisons to a pay-to-play model and raised questions about how decisions will be made and who holds actual power.
Who Has Joined and Who Hasn’t
So far, several countries, especially in the Middle East, have accepted invitations to participate, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan. Others such as Hungary, Belarus, Morocco and Azerbaijan have also expressed willingness to be involved.
However, major Western powers, including the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia, have declined to sign up at the Davos launch. Many of these governments describe the initiative as legally and politically problematic, and question its relationship with existing institutions like the United Nations Security Council.
Why the UK Said No
British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper articulated the UK’s position clearly: London will not sign the Board of Peace treaty because it views the proposed body as involving legal obligations beyond Gaza and potentially including actors, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, who have not shown genuine commitment to peace, especially in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine.
More from Kenya
Cooper also stressed that the UK supports peace efforts in the Middle East but believes existing international frameworks, like the UN, should remain central. The UK’s refusal is shaped by broader geopolitical concerns: it does not want to be party to a body that may undermine established multilateral mechanisms, nor one that could give Putin and allies influence in peace processes without clear accountability or progress on Ukraine.
Where Greenland Fits In
While the Board of Peace initiative and Greenland are different issues, they are both part of a wider pattern of Trump’s foreign policy moves that have strained relations with traditional Western allies and highlighted shifting geopolitical priorities: Trump’s earlier push to acquire Greenland, a semiautonomous Danish territory, was framed publicly as a U.S. national security priority in the Arctic, an area of intensified competition with Russia and China. Critics argued this move risked undermining NATO unity and transatlantic trust.
Denmark, the sovereign power over Greenland, and its allies made it clear the territory is not for sale, and Trump later softened his rhetoric at Davos without using force. Many European capitals saw this episode as symptomatic of Trump’s transactional approach to alliances, which, combined with the structure of the Board of Peace, fueled hesitation among EU and NATO members about joining a U.S.-led initiative that could overshadow the UN system or grant too much influence to countries Kremlin and Washington alike.
Observers say the Board of Peace reflects Trump’s desire to reshape the architecture of international diplomacy, potentially offering a platform where the U.S. or its chosen allies exercise outsized influence in conflict resolution, outside traditional multilateral frameworks Critics warn this has implications for: Ukraine peace efforts, with some allies concerned that involving Russia without clear guarantees of commitment could undermine Kyiv’s negotiating position.
The role of the United Nations, which traditionally mediates ceasefires and peacebuilding, a role that the Board seems positioned to supplement or rival. European unity on security and alliance cohesion, as divisions emerge over participation in Trump’s initiatives and responses to U.S. policy on Greenland and other strategic concerns.
In sum, while Trump’s Board of Peace has gained some early support, key partners remain cautious or openly sceptical, reflecting deeper tensions over how global peace efforts should be organised, who leads them, and how existing institutions like the UN should be respected and reinforced.
