A New Era of Conflict Resolution or Colonial Redux?

President Donald Trump’s newly announced “Board of Peace” initiative represents a significant shift in how the United States approaches global conflict resolution. While Singapore has not been publicly named among the countries invited to join this controversial body, the initiative’s implications for the city-state’s foreign policy, regional relationships, and global standing warrant careful examination.

President Trump has invited leaders from several countries to join a US-led “Board of Peace” initiative. According to the document, invitations were sent on January 17, 2026 to leaders from:

• France
• Germany
• Australia
• Canada
• Egypt
• Turkey
• The European Union (represented by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen)

The board’s initial focus is supervising the temporary governance of Gaza under a fragile ceasefire, but Trump stated it would expand to address other conflicts globally, describing it as handling “other countries that are going to war with each other.”

Already announced members include US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, private equity executive Marc Rowan, World Bank president Ajay Banga, and others, with Trump serving as chair.

The initiative has drawn criticism from rights experts who say the structure resembles colonialism, particularly given that no Palestinians are included among the members. One diplomat characterized it as a “Trump United Nations” that bypasses the UN charter’s fundamentals.

There’s also a separate 11-member “Gaza Executive Board” that includes officials from Turkey, the UAE, and the UN, though Israel has objected to its composition, particularly Turkey’s involvement.

Would you like to know more about any specific aspect of this development?

write in depth a

What is the Board of Peace?

The Board of Peace, announced by the White House on January 16, 2026, is positioned as an international mechanism to oversee conflict resolution, beginning with the governance of Gaza under a fragile ceasefire agreement. Trump has indicated the board will expand beyond the Middle East to address conflicts globally as they emerge.

Current membership includes US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, private equity executive Marc Rowan, and World Bank president Ajay Banga. Trump himself chairs the board.

Countries invited to participate include France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Egypt, Turkey, and the European Union, represented by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Why Singapore’s Absence Matters

Singapore’s exclusion from the initial invitation list is noteworthy for several reasons. As a small nation that has built its reputation on multilateralism, diplomatic neutrality, and adherence to international law, Singapore would seem a natural candidate for such an initiative—if it aligned with established international frameworks.

The city-state has long positioned itself as a bridge between East and West, between developed and developing nations, and between competing regional powers. Singapore’s diplomatic credentials include hosting the historic Trump-Kim summit in 2018, maintaining strong relationships with both the United States and China, and serving as a respected voice within ASEAN and at the United Nations.

However, Singapore’s absence may be strategic rather than accidental. The Board of Peace has been criticized by diplomats and rights experts as bypassing the UN Charter and resembling colonial structures—precisely the kind of framework Singapore has historically opposed.

Singapore’s Principled Foreign Policy at a Crossroads

Singapore’s foreign policy rests on several foundational principles that may put it at odds with the Board of Peace concept:

Respect for International Law and Multilateralism

Singapore has consistently championed the rules-based international order and the primacy of the United Nations system. Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and former Foreign Minister George Yeo have repeatedly emphasized that small states like Singapore depend on international law for their survival and prosperity.

One diplomat familiar with the invitation letter characterized the Board of Peace as a “Trump United Nations” that ignores UN Charter fundamentals. For Singapore, joining such a body could undermine decades of advocacy for multilateral institutions and international legal frameworks.

ASEAN Centrality and Non-Alignment

As a founding member of ASEAN, Singapore has worked to maintain the organization’s centrality in regional affairs while avoiding formal military alliances. The Board of Peace, dominated by Western powers and US interests, could be perceived as choosing sides in an increasingly polarized world.

Singapore’s careful balancing act between the United States and China—its largest trading partner and key regional power—would be complicated by participation in what some view as a US-centric alternative to UN mechanisms.

Sovereignty and Non-Interference

The concept of external governance over territories, even temporarily, touches on sensitive issues for Singapore. The city-state’s own history includes a brief and troubled merger with Malaysia, and it has consistently defended the principle of non-interference in internal affairs as essential to international relations.

The Board of Peace’s mandate to oversee Gaza’s governance during a transitional period, without meaningful Palestinian representation, runs counter to Singapore’s stated support for Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

Regional and Economic Implications

Singapore’s response to the Board of Peace initiative will have ripple effects across multiple dimensions:

Middle East Relations

Singapore has cultivated strong relationships across the Middle East, including with Israel, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and moderate Arab states. The city-state is a major trading hub and financial center for the region, with significant investments flowing in both directions.

Joining the Board of Peace without Palestinian representation could strain relationships with Arab and Muslim-majority nations. Singapore’s Muslim Malay community, comprising about 15% of the population, and its relationships with Indonesia and Malaysia—the world’s largest and third-largest Muslim-majority countries respectively—add domestic and regional sensitivities to this equation.

Conversely, declining to participate could be interpreted as distancing itself from US initiatives at a time when American engagement in the Indo-Pacific remains crucial to regional security.

The China Factor

China has positioned itself as a supporter of Palestinian rights and has criticized Western approaches to the Gaza conflict. Beijing’s alternative diplomatic initiatives, including its successful mediation of the Saudi-Iran rapprochement in 2023, represent a competing vision of conflict resolution that emphasizes sovereignty and non-interference.

Singapore’s decision regarding the Board of Peace will be watched closely in Beijing as an indicator of where the city-state stands between American and Chinese approaches to global governance.

Trade and Economic Considerations

With the Trump administration already implementing tariffs on European nations over the Greenland dispute, economic coercion has become a tool of US foreign policy. Singapore, heavily dependent on international trade and with significant economic ties to the United States, must weigh the potential costs of declining American initiatives.

However, Singapore has demonstrated willingness to stand on principle even when economically costly, as seen in its votes at the UN and its criticism of protectionism regardless of the source.

The Controversy Surrounding Key Members

The composition of the Board of Peace raises questions that Singapore would need to consider:

Tony Blair’s Involvement

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s inclusion has drawn criticism due to his role in the 2003 Iraq invasion and the broader history of British imperialism in the Middle East. For Singapore, which has emphasized decolonization and self-determination as core principles since its founding, Blair’s presence complicates the initiative’s legitimacy.

Jared Kushner’s Conflicts of Interest

Trump’s son-in-law has been linked to business interests in the region, including reported plans for development projects. Singapore’s reputation for clean governance and transparency in international dealings could be tarnished by association with perceived conflicts of interest.

Lack of Palestinian Representation

The absence of Palestinian voices in a body overseeing Palestinian governance contradicts Singapore’s long-standing support for a two-state solution and Palestinian self-determination. This omission could make Singaporean participation politically untenable both domestically and internationally.

Possible Singaporean Responses

Singapore faces several options, each with distinct implications:

Polite Declination

Singapore could decline participation while expressing support for peace efforts and emphasizing its commitment to UN-led processes. This approach would preserve relationships while maintaining principled positions on international law and multilateralism.

The city-state could offer alternative support, such as hosting negotiations, providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza, or facilitating dialogue between parties—roles consistent with its bridge-building identity.

Conditional Engagement

Singapore might engage with the initiative while insisting on reforms, such as meaningful Palestinian representation, clearer alignment with UN frameworks, and transparent governance structures. This approach would demonstrate constructive engagement while pushing for improvements.

However, this strategy risks association with a controversial initiative without sufficient influence to reshape its fundamental character.

Strategic Silence

By neither accepting nor declining publicly, Singapore could maintain flexibility while observing how the initiative develops and how other nations respond. This wait-and-see approach carries risks of appearing indecisive but allows for adaptation as circumstances evolve.

Broader Implications for Global Governance

The Board of Peace represents a broader trend toward alternative governance mechanisms outside traditional multilateral institutions. For Singapore, this raises fundamental questions about the future of international order:

Erosion of Multilateralism

If major powers increasingly bypass the UN and create ad hoc structures, the rules-based order that has served Singapore well may weaken. Small states could find themselves with even less influence in a world dominated by competing power blocs and bilateral arrangements.

Precedent for Regional Conflicts

Should the Board of Peace expand to other conflicts as Trump suggested, it could eventually touch on issues closer to Singapore’s neighborhood—maritime disputes, territorial tensions, or internal conflicts in Southeast Asia. Singapore’s stance now could affect whether it has any voice in such future interventions.

Competition for International Legitimacy

China, Russia, and other powers may develop their own alternative mechanisms, fragmenting the international system further. Singapore would need to navigate an increasingly complex landscape of competing frameworks, each demanding alignment.

Domestic Considerations

Singapore’s multicultural and multi-religious society adds complexity to any decision regarding the Board of Peace:

Public Opinion and Social Cohesion

The Gaza conflict has generated significant public interest in Singapore, with concerns expressed across communities about humanitarian suffering. The government has traditionally been careful to maintain communal harmony while addressing international issues that could have domestic reverberations.

Joining a board criticized for colonial overtones and lacking Palestinian representation could generate public pushback, particularly from the Muslim community and younger, more globally connected Singaporeans who follow international affairs closely.

Maintaining Credibility

Singapore’s soft power rests partly on its reputation for principled pragmatism—being practical in pursuit of clearly articulated values. Any decision that appears purely opportunistic or abandons core principles could undermine this carefully cultivated image.

Singapore’s Likely Path Forward

Based on Singapore’s historical foreign policy patterns, several predictions seem reasonable:

The government will likely take considerable time before making any public statement, using this period to consult with regional partners, assess international reactions, and clarify the initiative’s details with US officials.

If an invitation has been or will be extended to Singapore, the response will probably emphasize:

• Support for peace and stability in Gaza and globally
• The importance of Palestinian voices in decisions affecting Palestinian governance
• The need for any conflict resolution mechanism to complement rather than replace UN frameworks
• Singapore’s willingness to contribute to humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts
• Careful language that avoids directly criticizing the United States while maintaining principled positions

Singapore may also work through ASEAN to develop a collective response, providing diplomatic cover and reinforcing the principle of regional consultation on major international initiatives.

Conclusion: Principles in an Era of Transactional Diplomacy

The Board of Peace initiative tests whether small states like Singapore can maintain principled foreign policies in an era of increasingly transactional great power politics. The city-state has built its success on being reliable, consistent, and committed to international law even when inconvenient.

While Singapore values its relationship with the United States and recognizes American security guarantees as important to regional stability, it has never been a simple follower of US policy. The government has voted against American positions at the UN when principles demanded it, criticized protectionism regardless of the source, and maintained relationships with countries Washington opposes.

The Board of Peace, with its controversial structure, lack of Palestinian representation, and potential to undermine multilateral institutions, may prove too far from Singapore’s core foreign policy principles to support, regardless of the diplomatic costs.

As the initiative develops and more details emerge, Singapore’s response will signal how the city-state navigates an increasingly fragmented international order—one where the rules-based system it depends upon is challenged by both rising powers and its closest security partner.

For a small nation in a tough neighborhood, these are not easy choices. But Singapore has never had the luxury of easy choices. Its success has come from making principled decisions even when difficult, and trusting that consistency and credibility ultimately serve its interests better than short-term opportunism.

The question is not whether Singapore will face pressure regarding the Board of Peace. The question is whether, in facing that pressure, it will remain true to the principles that have made it a respected voice in international affairs despite its size—or whether a new era of great power competition will force even the most principled small states to choose sides in ways that compromise their values.

That answer will shape not just Singapore’s role in Middle Eastern peace efforts, but its place in the emerging global order.