The Invitation That Tests Singapore’s Diplomatic DNA

Singapore finds itself at a critical diplomatic juncture. On January 20, 2026, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the city-state has received an invitation from the United States to join President Donald Trump’s controversial Board of Peace. The government’s carefully worded response that it is “currently assessing the invitation” reveals the delicate balancing act Singapore must perform as it weighs participation in an initiative that could fundamentally reshape global governance.

This decision carries profound implications for Singapore’s foreign policy principles, its role in ASEAN, its relationships with major powers, and its standing in the international community. For a nation that has built its success on non-alignment, multilateralism, and rules-based order, the Board of Peace presents both risks and opportunities that require careful navigation.

Trump’s Position on the UN: Trump stated he wants to “let the U.N. continue” despite acknowledging it “hasn’t been very helpful.” When asked if the Board of Peace might replace the UN, he said “might,” but emphasized the UN’s potential is too great to abandon it entirely.

The Board of Peace:

• The board includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, former British PM Tony Blair, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner
• A UN Security Council resolution from mid-November authorized the board to help establish an international stabilization force in Gaza
• Trump has indicated plans to expand the board’s role to address conflicts globally beyond Gaza

International Concerns:

• Governments worldwide have reacted cautiously to the initiative
• Diplomats worry it could undermine UN work
• Critics compare the structure to colonialism, with Trump overseeing governance of foreign territory
• Blair’s involvement has drawn criticism due to his role in the Iraq War and British imperialism in the Middle East

Gaza Situation: The article notes that the ceasefire in Gaza under Trump’s plan has been fragile, with over 460 Palestinians (including 100+ children) and three Israeli soldiers reportedly killed since the truce began in October.

Understanding the Board of Peace: More Than Meets the Eye

From Gaza to Global Ambitions

What began as a mechanism to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction following a fragile ceasefire in October 2025 has rapidly evolved into something far more ambitious. While the UN Security Council authorized the Board in November 2025 specifically for Gaza, the draft charter circulating among invited nations makes no mention of the Palestinian territory. Instead, it describes the Board as an international organization seeking to promote stability and peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict worldwide.

Trump chairs the Board and wields significant power over membership decisions and veto authority. The executive board includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, alongside billionaire Yakir Gabay and World Bank President Ajay Banga. This mixture of political figures, family members, and business leaders has raised eyebrows among international observers.

The Billion-Dollar Question

The Board’s funding structure has sparked particular controversy. While countries can join for free on a standard three-year term renewable by the chairman, permanent membership requires a contribution of at least one billion US dollars within the first year. For Singapore, this translates to approximately 1.3 billion Singapore dollars.

Analysts have characterized this arrangement as a pay-to-play alternative to the UN Security Council, where financial resources rather than diplomatic consensus determine long-term influence. Some European nations strongly oppose this model, viewing it as incompatible with established principles of international governance. France has already declined participation, prompting Trump to threaten 200 percent tariffs on French wine.

Singapore’s Foreign Policy at a Crossroads

The Pillars Under Pressure

Singapore’s foreign policy has rested on several fundamental pillars since independence in 1965. These principles now face a stress test:

Non-Alignment and Strategic Autonomy: Singapore is a proud member of the Non-Aligned Movement and has consistently avoided exclusive commitments to any single major power. Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan articulated this approach in October 2025 when asked about the Board of Peace: “We are not campaigning to be on the Board of Peace. We are Singaporeans. Our approach is always to do more, say less, be quietly helpful and constructive, work from the ground up.”

This philosophy of “active multi-engagement” rather than passive non-alignment has allowed Singapore to maintain strong defense ties with the United States while cultivating deep economic relationships with China. The Board of Peace, chaired by Trump and potentially positioning itself as a rival to the UN, threatens this careful equilibrium.

Commitment to Multilateralism: Singapore has been a vocal champion of multilateral institutions and the rules-based international order. The city-state actively participates in the UN, WTO, and numerous regional forums. It co-founded the Forum of Small States and the Global Governance Group specifically to ensure smaller nations have a voice in global governance.

At the 19th Non-Aligned Movement Summit in January 2024, Singapore emphasized that NAM members must “steadfastly uphold multilateralism, the UN Charter and international law” and “strengthen the UN as the foundation for dialogue and international cooperation.” The Board of Peace, by potentially undermining these existing structures, runs counter to these stated principles.

ASEAN Centrality: As a founding member of ASEAN, Singapore has invested decades in building regional architecture with ASEAN at the center. The concept of “ASEAN centrality” positions the organization as the primary driver of regional cooperation and security dialogue through mechanisms like the ASEAN Regional Forum, East Asia Summit, and ASEAN Plus Three.

Singapore’s Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen has noted that certain behaviors “risk undermining the ASEAN Centrality that we have painstakingly built over the past two decades.” Joining a US-led initiative that bypasses ASEAN-centered processes could send contradictory signals about Singapore’s commitment to regional primacy.

The Strategic Calculus: Costs and Benefits

Potential Risks of Participation

Damage to Multilateral Credibility: Joining the Board could undermine Singapore’s reputation as a defender of established international institutions. The Board’s structure, with Trump holding chairman veto power and permanent seats available for purchase, fundamentally contradicts principles of sovereign equality that Singapore has championed.

ASEAN Unity Concerns: If Singapore joins while other ASEAN members decline, it could create fissures in regional solidarity. ASEAN operates on consensus, and divergent positions on major international initiatives can weaken collective bargaining power. Malaysia, Indonesia, and other partners may view Singapore’s participation as prioritizing bilateral US ties over regional cohesion.

China Relations: Beijing has been invited but notably not offered a prominent role. Singapore’s participation in a Trump-led board could be interpreted in Beijing as alignment with American efforts to build alternative power structures. This risks complicating Singapore’s economic relationship with its largest trading partner and unsettling the delicate balance Singapore maintains between Washington and Beijing.

Colonial Echoes: Critics have compared the Board’s structure—with external powers overseeing governance of territories like Gaza—to colonial administration. For Singapore, a nation that emphasizes principles of non-interference and respect for sovereignty, association with such structures could damage its standing among developing nations and within the Non-Aligned Movement.

Financial Commitment: The one billion dollar price tag for permanent membership represents a substantial financial outlay. While Singapore’s foreign reserves could accommodate this expense, the optics of paying for influence rather than earning it through diplomatic contributions may sit uncomfortably with Singapore’s values-based foreign policy.

Potential Benefits of Engagement

US Relationship Management: Singapore has extensive security and defense ties with the United States, including access to advanced military technology and training facilities. The Trump administration has shown a willingness to reward loyalty and punish perceived slights. Declining the invitation could strain this critical relationship, while participation might strengthen bilateral ties.

Practical Influence: If the Board gains traction and becomes a significant player in conflict resolution, Singapore’s absence could mean loss of influence over outcomes that affect regional stability. By participating, Singapore could work from within to steer the Board toward more constructive, rules-based approaches.

Bridging Role: Singapore has successfully positioned itself as a neutral mediator and meeting ground for major powers, hosting summits like the Trump-Kim meeting in 2018. Membership in the Board could extend this convening capacity to new arenas of global governance, allowing Singapore to facilitate dialogue between competing powers.

Humanitarian Focus: If the Board successfully channels resources toward Gaza reconstruction and other conflict-affected areas, Singapore’s participation could contribute to genuine humanitarian outcomes. Singapore could emphasize the technical, developmental aspects of the Board’s work rather than its political dimensions.

Regional and International Reactions

Global Response Patterns

International response to the Board of Peace has been decidedly mixed:

European Skepticism: France has firmly declined, with Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot stating the charter goes beyond the UN-endorsed Gaza mandate and is “incompatible with France’s international commitments.” The UK has been cautious, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressing concern about Putin’s involvement. Norway has also declined.

Opportunistic Acceptances: Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Argentina’s Javier Milei have accepted, viewing the Board as a way to strengthen ties with Trump. Vietnam has indicated willingness to join. Several countries including Belarus, Kazakhstan, Morocco, and Armenia have responded positively, though it’s unclear whether they would pay the billion-dollar fee.

Conditional Engagement: Canada said it would participate but explicitly ruled out the permanent membership fee. India, Pakistan, Brazil, and several other nations are still assessing the invitation.

Middle East Complexity: Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi confirmed receiving an invitation. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has objected to the executive committee composition, particularly the inclusion of Turkey and Qatar, stating it wasn’t coordinated with Israel and contradicts Israeli policy.

ASEAN Dynamics

Singapore’s decision will be closely watched by ASEAN partners. The organization has historically maintained unity on major international initiatives, though this consensus has frayed on issues like Myanmar and South China Sea tensions.

Thailand, which confirmed receiving an invitation, is also deliberating its response. If multiple ASEAN members join while others decline, it could expose divisions within the organization at a time when ASEAN centrality already faces challenges from external minilateral arrangements like AUKUS and the Quad.

Indonesia, as ASEAN’s largest member, has not publicly confirmed receiving an invitation, raising questions about whether Trump’s approach to the Board reflects understanding of regional dynamics or risks alienating key Southeast Asian nations.

Singapore’s Decision-Making Framework

The “Do More, Say Less” Philosophy

Foreign Minister Balakrishnan’s October 2025 comments provide insight into Singapore’s approach: “Our approach is always to do more, say less, be quietly helpful and constructive, work from the ground up. So that’s why we’re not asking to sit on any boards, but we will step up our longstanding cooperation with the Palestinian Authority.”

This suggests Singapore may prioritize practical, ground-level contributions over high-profile board membership. However, the Trump administration’s direct invitation complicates this preference for quiet diplomacy. Declining could be interpreted as a public rebuff, while accepting might force Singapore into a more prominent role than it traditionally seeks.

Constitutional and Domestic Considerations

Singapore’s foreign policy decisions ultimately serve national interests, which begin with survival and prosperity. The government must weigh:

1. Economic Security: Singapore’s trade-to-GDP ratio exceeds 300 percent, making it heavily dependent on stable global commerce. Any decision that jeopardizes relationships with major trading partners—whether the US, China, the EU, or ASEAN neighbors—carries economic risk.
2. Defense Requirements: Singapore relies on the United States for advanced military hardware through Foreign Military Sales, including F-15SG and F-35B fighters. Defense partnerships are existential for a small nation in a complex region. The government must assess whether declining Board membership could affect these critical defense relationships.
3. Regional Stability: Singapore’s prosperity depends on regional peace. The Board of Peace, despite its controversial structure, purports to address conflicts that could affect Southeast Asia. Singapore must evaluate whether participation could genuinely contribute to stability or instead fuel great power competition that destabilizes the region.

Alternative Pathways and Creative Solutions

The Middle Way

Singapore’s diplomatic tradition suggests several possible approaches that balance competing interests:

Observer Status: Rather than full membership, Singapore could seek an observer or advisory role that allows input without full commitment. This would acknowledge the invitation while preserving flexibility and avoiding the permanent membership fee.

Conditional Participation: Singapore could accept membership contingent on reforms to the Board’s charter, such as clearer adherence to UN principles, more inclusive governance structures, or limitations on the chairman’s veto power. This would signal engagement while advocating for improvements.

ASEAN Collective Approach: Singapore could propose that ASEAN engage with the Board as a collective entity rather than individual members joining separately. This would preserve ASEAN centrality while allowing regional input into the Board’s work.

Parallel Track: Singapore could accept Board membership while simultaneously increasing support for and investment in traditional UN mechanisms and ASEAN-led processes. This dual approach would demonstrate that Board participation doesn’t mean abandonment of established multilateral institutions.

Implications for Small State Diplomacy

A Defining Moment

Singapore’s decision on the Board of Peace carries implications beyond bilateral US relations. It will signal how small states navigate an era of renewed great power competition and challenges to the post-World War II international order.

Other small nations face similar dilemmas. How do they maintain relationships with major powers while preserving strategic autonomy? How do they defend principles like sovereign equality when powerful nations offer pay-to-play mechanisms for influence? How do they balance practical engagement with values-based foreign policy?

Singapore’s choice will be closely studied by the Forum of Small States and other developing nations seeking models for principled yet pragmatic diplomacy in challenging times.

The Precedent Factor

If Singapore—a nation that has championed multilateralism and rules-based order—joins the Board despite its controversial structure, it could provide cover for other countries to follow suit. This could accelerate the Board’s establishment as a significant player in global governance, potentially at the expense of traditional UN mechanisms.

Conversely, if Singapore declines or demands substantial reforms as a condition of participation, it could strengthen international resolve to preserve and reform existing institutions rather than replace them with new, potentially less equitable structures.

The Broader Context: A Changing World Order

Multilateralism Under Strain

Singapore’s Board of Peace dilemma occurs against a backdrop of broader challenges to multilateralism. Trump has announced US withdrawal from 31 UN agencies and bodies, describing their operations as “contrary to US national interests.” This follows years of declining US funding for UN operations and increasingly frequent use of veto power in the Security Council.

China, meanwhile, has sought to build alternative institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative, creating parallel structures to Western-led organizations. The global governance landscape is fragmenting, with consensus-based multilateralism giving way to transactional, alignment-based cooperation.

For Singapore, which has prospered under the post-1945 liberal international order, this fragmentation poses existential questions. Can small states thrive in a world where power rather than rules determines outcomes? How can Singapore adapt while preserving core principles?

The ASEAN Model Under Pressure

ASEAN centrality—the concept that Southeast Asian nations drive regional cooperation through ASEAN-led mechanisms—faces mounting pressure. External powers increasingly pursue minilateral arrangements that bypass ASEAN, such as AUKUS among Australia, the UK, and the US, or the Quad linking Australia, India, Japan, and the US.

The Board of Peace represents another potential challenge to ASEAN centrality. If it successfully addresses conflicts and reconstruction needs, it could demonstrate that US-led coalitions can achieve outcomes that ASEAN-centered diplomacy cannot. This could undermine the rationale for maintaining ASEAN at the heart of regional security architecture.

Singapore has invested heavily in ASEAN centrality, hosting the annual Shangri-La Dialogue and championing ASEAN unity on issues from trade to security. The Board decision will signal whether Singapore believes ASEAN-centered regionalism remains viable or whether hedging strategies now require engagement with alternative frameworks.

Likely Scenarios and Strategic Recommendations

Scenario Analysis

Scenario 1: Graceful Decline Singapore could decline Board membership while emphasizing continued commitment to Gaza reconstruction through UN mechanisms and bilateral assistance. This preserves multilateral credibility but risks US displeasure.

Scenario 2: Strategic Acceptance Singapore accepts three-year membership without paying for permanent status, viewing it as a temporary engagement to assess the Board’s evolution. This balances US relations while maintaining flexibility to exit if the Board proves problematic.

Scenario 3: Collective ASEAN Response Singapore coordinates with ASEAN partners to develop a unified position—either collective engagement or collective abstention. This strengthens regional solidarity but may be difficult to achieve given diverse member interests.

Scenario 4: Principled Conditionality Singapore accepts in principle but demands charter reforms addressing transparency, governance, and alignment with UN principles. This demonstrates leadership while advocating for improvements.

The Path Forward

Singapore’s optimal approach likely combines elements of several scenarios:

1. Consult Extensively: Engage ASEAN partners, traditional allies, and key dialogue partners to understand regional and international perspectives before finalizing a decision.
2. Define Clear Parameters: If Singapore joins, establish explicit criteria for participation—such as the Board adhering to international law, respecting UN primacy, and operating transparently.
3. Maintain Parallel Commitments: Regardless of Board decision, increase Singapore’s support for UN agencies, ASEAN mechanisms, and other multilateral institutions to signal continued commitment to rules-based order.
4. Communicate Carefully: Frame any decision in terms of Singapore’s principles—explaining how the choice serves regional stability, sovereign equality, and practical conflict resolution rather than alignment with any major power.
5. Preserve Flexibility: Avoid permanent financial commitments that limit future options. Singapore’s traditional approach favors keeping multiple doors open rather than locking into single frameworks.

Conclusion: Navigating Uncharted Waters

Singapore’s Board of Peace decision represents more than a binary choice between acceptance and refusal. It encapsulates the fundamental challenges facing small states in an era of renewed great power competition, declining multilateralism, and fragmenting global governance.

The government’s measured response—”currently assessing the invitation”—reflects the complexity of calculations involved. Singapore must balance relationships with the United States and China, preserve ASEAN unity while maintaining strategic autonomy, defend multilateral principles while engaging pragmatically with new realities, and uphold its values while advancing its interests.

Whatever Singapore decides, the choice will resonate beyond its immediate bilateral implications. It will signal how seriously Singapore takes its commitment to multilateralism and rules-based order. It will indicate whether ASEAN centrality remains viable or requires recalibration. It will demonstrate whether small states can maintain independence or must align with great power initiatives.

For a nation that has built its success on principled pragmatism, careful calibration of interests and values, and quiet but effective diplomacy, the Board of Peace invitation presents both challenge and opportunity. The decision will help define Singapore’s foreign policy for the next generation—shaping whether the city-state continues navigating successfully between major powers or finds this balancing act increasingly untenable in a polarizing world.

As Singapore deliberates, the international community watches. In a world where small states increasingly struggle to preserve autonomy and influence, Singapore’s choice will matter far beyond its own shores. It will provide a template—or a cautionary tale—for how nations without great power status navigate the turbulent waters of 21st-century geopolitics.

The board’s first meeting is expected during the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, but Singapore’s decision need not be rushed. The careful, deliberative approach Singapore is taking—assessing implications, consulting stakeholders, weighing options—reflects the mature, sophisticated foreign policy that has served the nation well for nearly six decades.

In the end, Singapore’s decision will likely reflect its core foreign policy principle: putting Singapore’s interests first while contributing constructively to regional and global stability. Whether that means joining the Board, declining the invitation, or finding a creative middle path remains to be seen. But Singapore’s track record of successfully navigating complex diplomatic challenges suggests the eventual decision will be thoughtful, strategic, and ultimately in service of the nation’s long-term security and prosperity.