Answer

Introduction

The ‘Board of Peace’ (BoP) is a US-led, invitation-only intergovernmental body proposed by the US President and mandated by UNSC Resolution 2803 (November 2025). Designed to supervise Gaza’s transitional governance and reconstruction, it represents a departure from universal multilateralism toward executive-driven, ad-hoc coalitions, effectively creating a “pay-to-enter” club for global crisis management.

Body

Implications for the UNSC

• Dilution of Authority: By creating an autonomous body with “international legal personality,” the BoP effectively bypasses the UN Secretariat and specialized agencies, concentrating power in a US-led executive committee.
  Eg: Critics argue that the Board of Peace undermines the UN Charter’s principles of sovereign equality, universal participation, and collective decision-making.
• Erosion of Sovereign Equality: Unlike the UN’s principle of equal membership, the Board of Peace is a hierarchical forum where permanent seats are reportedly linked to a $1 billion contribution for Gaza reconstruction.
  Eg: This “transactional” model marginalizes smaller nations and the Global South, replacing consensus with financial leverage.
• Institutional Paralysis: The shift indicates a move away from the gridlocked UNSC, risking its reduction to a debating forum while real security decisions shift to exclusive “Boards.”.
• Fragmentation of Peacebuilding: The BoP creates a parallel architecture that diverts funding and legitimacy away from established UN frameworks like the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC).

Issues and Strategic Concerns

• Lack of Accountability: As an ad-hoc body chaired by a single world leader, the BoP lacks the neutrality and oversight inherent in UN-mandated operations, risking “colonial trusteeship” perceptions.
  Eg: Policy briefs highlight that the BoP operates as a “quasi-gatekeeper” for humanitarian aid, determining relief based on political alignment.
• Regional Landmines: For nations like India, joining the BoP means sharing a platform with rivals like Pakistan on Trump’s terms, complicating bilateral sensitivities.
• Normalisation of Coercion: Using ad hoc coalitions to reshape governance in conflict zones without local consent weakens the UN Charter’s principle of self-determination.

India’s Recalibration: Beyond Traditional Reform

• Pragmatic Multipolarity: India should move from “reformed multilateralism” to pragmatic multipolar engagement, without endorsing the dilution of UN centrality.
  Eg: India’s recent engagement with the German Chancellor,  “Indo-European” idea shows a strategy to balance US and Chinese influence via alternative power centers.
• Functional Techno-Diplomacy: Instead of just seeking a permanent seat, India should lead in Global Agenda-Setting for new domains like AI governance, digital public infrastructure (DPI), and green tech.
• Neighborhood First 2.0: Strengthening regional resilience through “First Responder” roles ensures India remains the primary security provider in its vicinity, irrespective of global “Boards”.
  Eg: India’s $450 million aid package to Sri Lanka (2025) reinforces its status as a reliable regional anchor.
• Strategic Autonomy in Deployments: India should maintain its principled stance of only contributing military forces to UN-mandated operations, keeping BoP engagement strictly political and humanitarian.

Conclusion

The ‘Board of Peace’ represents the “forced pragmatisation” of global order. India can no longer rely on 20th-century norms; it must build domestic techno-economic resilience to survive in a transactional era. India’s task is to navigate these “pay-to-play” coalitions without compromising its strategic autonomy or its long-term vision of an inclusive, rules-based international system.

DOWNLOAD PDF