Qatar, Saudi Arabia Among Nine Countries Joining Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’

Middle Eastern and Muslim‑majority nations step into a new international peace initiative amid global debate on its purpose and implications

U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly launched “Board of Peace” initiative has attracted the attention of the world’s diplomatic community, with top nations such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia among those accepting invitations to join the initiative. Designed ostensibly to support conflict resolution and reconstruction efforts — initially focused on Gaza — the Board of Peace is shaping into a controversial, high‑stakes diplomatic project with far‑reaching implications for global conflict management and the future role of the United Nations.

At least nine Muslim‑majority countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye (Turkey), Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Pakistan, and Kuwait, have publicly declared their intention to participate, with similar support coming from other international actors attending the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.

---

Origins of the Board of Peace Initiative

The Board of Peace was formally unveiled by President Trump at the 2026 World Economic Forum as part of a broader 20‑point peace plan aimed at ending the prolonged Israel‑Hamas conflict in Gaza and facilitating reconstruction and stabilization in the war‑torn territory. Initially conceived as a body with a narrow focus on Gaza, its charter — surprisingly — makes no direct mention of Gaza at all. Instead, its objectives are framed in terms of conflict resolution, governance stability, and broader peace promotion in regions 'affected or threatened' by war.

The initiative represents a departure from traditional diplomacy led by multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, which has historically held primary authority in matters of international peacekeeping and conflict mediation. In fact, Trump has described the Board of Peace as potentially capable of addressing global crises beyond Gaza and even hinted that it could act alongside, or in place of, the UN in some cases.

Trump’s unconventional strategy has drawn both support and skepticism. Several participating countries see membership as an opportunity to strengthen diplomatic influence and engagement with Washington, while critics argue the initiative risks undermining established international frameworks.

---

Why Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Others Joined

For many of the countries accepting the invitation — including Qatar and Saudi Arabia — participation reflects the complex geopolitical realities of the Middle East, where peace efforts must balance strategic interests, humanitarian concerns, and global influence.

In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of several Islamic and Arab nations reiterated their support for what they described as a collective commitment to achieving a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, advancing reconstruction, and supporting Palestinian self‑determination under international law.

For Qatar, which has historically played a role as a mediator in Middle East conflicts, joining the board aligns with its broader diplomatic positioning as a facilitator of dialogue. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s participation demonstrates Riyadh’s willingness to engage directly in U.S.‑led peace efforts at a time when it seeks to expand its role as a regional stabilizer.

Similarly, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE have affirmed their readiness to participate, focusing on the immediate need to implement a sustainable ceasefire and to assist in post‑conflict reconstruction efforts directed at restoring stability for civilian populations.

---

Diplomatic Reactions: Support and Skepticism

International reactions to the Board of Peace have been mixed. Supporters emphasize the urgent humanitarian need in Gaza and the potential for coordinated international action to bring peace where other approaches have stalled. For these countries, acceptance of Trump’s invitation is seen as a pragmatic step toward consolidating a permanent ceasefire and stabilizing a fragile region.

However, observers and analysts have raised significant concerns about the initiative’s structure and wider implications. One major point of debate is the possibility that the Board of Peace could undermine the legitimacy and authority of the United Nations — a central pillar of post‑World War II diplomacy — by positioning itself as an alternative mechanism for global conflict resolution.

Critics also note that several traditional U.S. and European allies have either declined to participate or hesitated to commit, reflecting discomfort with the initiative’s leadership and long‑term objectives. Countries such as France, the UK, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have publicly opted out, citing concerns that the Board might interfere with the established international order and principal membership of the UN.

---

Ambitions Beyond Gaza

Although the Board of Peace was initially framed around Gaza’s reconstruction, its mandate appears to be broader. Reports indicate that it may eventually extend its work to other regions affected by conflict and instability, potentially making it a global platform outside of traditional multilateral institutions.

Trump has suggested that the board could tackle various international disputes and conflicts, framing it as a flexible and decisive body capable of acting where other institutions might be limited by bureaucratic constraints. Participation from countries across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and even parts of Europe reflects a varied level of international interest — even as some major global players remain on the fence.

---

Political and Regional Implications

The inclusion of Qatar and Saudi Arabia — two influential Gulf states — underscores a key strategic shift: Middle Eastern nations are increasingly willing to engage in multilateral initiatives led by major powers beyond traditional Western institutions. Their involvement may be motivated by a desire to influence outcomes directly, secure political leverage, and ensure that peace processes reflect regional interests and concerns.

At the same time, the Board of Peace’s expansion highlights the fluid nature of international alliances in the 21st century, where bilateral and regional interests increasingly drive participation in global initiatives.

---

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

As the Board of Peace begins its work, it faces several complex challenges. Establishing authority and legitimacy in conflict zones like Gaza will require careful coordination with local stakeholders, humanitarian organizations, and international institutions. The board must also navigate deep‑rooted political tensions and geopolitical rivalries, both within the Middle East and between global powers.

At the same time, participation from nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia provides a platform for diverse diplomatic voices to contribute to peacebuilding efforts. Whether the board ultimately succeeds in its mission — or becomes a politically contentious experiment in new governance — remains to be seen.

What is clear is that Trump’s Board of Peace has opened a new chapter in international diplomacy, one that continues to spark debate about the future of conflict resolution, global cooperation, and the role of emerging power blocs in shaping 21st‑century peace initiatives.