A New Global Order in the Making?
President Donald Trump’s newly unveiled “Board of Peace” initiative is sending ripples through global capitals, and Singapore—as a small nation heavily dependent on international stability and rules-based order—finds itself at a critical juncture in assessing its response to this unprecedented diplomatic gambit.
The invitation to join Trump’s Board of Peace, extended to approximately 60 nations including India, Pakistan, and multiple ASEAN members, presents Singapore with a complex diplomatic challenge that touches on fundamental questions about the future of multilateralism, the role of the United Nations, and the very principles upon which Singapore’s foreign policy has been built for six decades.
What Is the Board of Peace?
Launched as part of the second phase of Trump’s 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan, the Board of Peace is positioned as an international organization designed to promote stability, restore governance, and secure peace in conflict-affected regions. However, the accompanying charter reveals ambitions far beyond Gaza.
Key Features:
- Trump would serve as chairman for life
- Countries can secure permanent membership by contributing $1 billion within the first year
- Three-year terms available without financial contribution, subject to renewal by the chairman
- The board would hold voting meetings at least annually, with all decisions subject to the chairman’s approval
- An executive committee includes US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
The charter notably makes no direct mention of Gaza in its text, instead describing a broad mandate to address conflicts globally—leading diplomats to warn it could function as a “Trump United Nations” that undermines existing multilateral institutions.
Singapore’s Strategic Dilemma
The Unspoken Absence
What’s striking in the coverage of the Board of Peace invitations is the conspicuous absence of any mention of Singapore receiving an invitation. While neighboring ASEAN members India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia have been named as invitees, Singapore appears to have been left off Trump’s initial list—or at minimum, has remained publicly silent on any invitation received.
This silence is significant for several reasons:
Singapore’s Traditional Role: The city-state has historically punched above its weight diplomatically, serving as a trusted interlocutor between major powers and hosting landmark summits, including the 2018 Trump-Kim Jong Un meeting. Singapore’s exclusion from—or hesitation toward—the Board of Peace marks a notable shift in its usual position as a key player in regional diplomatic initiatives.
The ASEAN Chair Question: The Philippines will assume the ASEAN chairmanship in 2026, and Trump has already shown willingness to use Southeast Asian summits as stages for his peace-brokering ambitions. Singapore will host future ASEAN summits in its rotating turn. The Board of Peace’s trajectory could significantly affect how these summits unfold and what role Singapore plays.
Fundamental Contradictions with Singapore’s Foreign Policy
Singapore’s foreign policy, as articulated in recent Ministry of Foreign Affairs statements, rests on several core pillars that are fundamentally at odds with the Board of Peace structure:
1. Rules-Based Multilateralism
Singapore has consistently championed the United Nations and multilateral institutions as essential for small states’ survival. Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan stated in September 2025: “The Security Council should serve as a platform for confidence-building and the sharing of experiences and best practices.”
The Board of Peace, by contrast, positions itself as an alternative to the UN—one where decision-making power rests with a single chairman rather than being distributed through established international law frameworks.
2. Equal Sovereignty of States
The Board’s structure—where Trump chairs for life and holds approval power over all decisions—runs counter to Singapore’s repeated emphasis on the equal sovereignty of nations regardless of size. As MFA’s 2025 Presidential Address Addendum noted, Singapore’s foreign policy success depends on “our reputation for stability and reliability” within a system where “every nation, big or small” has voice.
3. Predictability and Stability
Former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently observed that the international environment has become “far less orderly and predictable” under Trump, with the US “no longer prepared to underwrite the global order.” Singapore’s entire national strategy depends on a predictable, rules-based system. The Board of Peace—with its pay-to-play structure and single-person decision-making—represents the antithesis of such predictability.
The Tariff Shadow
Singapore’s calculus regarding the Board of Peace cannot be separated from broader trade concerns with the Trump administration. In April 2025, Trump imposed a universal 10% tariff on all goods imported to the United States. While this was among the lowest rates in Southeast Asia—Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam faced rates between 46-49%—it still represented a shift in what had been a highly favorable trade relationship.
Singapore runs a trade deficit with the United States, exporting $43 billion in goods and services while the US enjoys an $18 billion surplus. This unusual dynamic has historically insulated Singapore from Trump’s “reciprocal tariff” rhetoric, but it also means Singapore has less leverage in negotiations and less to “offer” in return for preferential treatment.
The Board of Peace’s $1 billion membership fee could be seen as yet another transactional demand from an administration that has weaponized economic relationships. For Singapore, whose 2025 national budget totaled approximately SGD $123 billion (USD $91 billion), a $1 billion contribution would represent roughly 1% of annual government spending—a substantial but not impossible sum.
However, paying for permanent membership would set a troubling precedent: that international standing can be purchased, that multilateral participation is transactional, and that Trump’s personal approval is a commodity nations must bid for.
The ASEAN Dimension
Singapore’s response to the Board of Peace must also consider its role within ASEAN, where the initiative has generated mixed reactions:
Regional Divergence: While Cambodia appears enthusiastic (having secured improved relations with the Trump administration through critical minerals deals and the removal of the arms embargo), traditional allies like Thailand have shown wariness. Indonesia and Malaysia have remained largely silent on their positions.
ASEAN Centrality at Risk: One of ASEAN’s core principles is “ASEAN Centrality”—the idea that the regional grouping should be at the center of regional security architecture. The Board of Peace, by establishing a Trump-led alternative mechanism, directly challenges this principle. If individual ASEAN members join without coordination, it could fragment the bloc’s unified approach to regional and global issues.
The Philippines Factor: With the Philippines set to chair ASEAN in 2026, and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. having received the first Oval Office meeting of any Southeast Asian leader under Trump, the Board of Peace could become entangled with ASEAN’s future direction. Singapore would need to carefully navigate supporting the incoming chair while maintaining its own principles.
Lessons from Singapore’s Trump 1.0 Experience
Singapore’s experience during Trump’s first term offers instructive precedents:
Strategic Patience: Despite Trump’s chronic absenteeism from ASEAN summits during his first term—attending just one in 2017 and leaving before the East Asia Summit—Singapore maintained steady engagement with the administration at working levels.
Bilateral Over Multilateral: Singapore secured concrete gains through bilateral channels, including defense agreements and continued access to advanced US military platforms like F-35s and HIMARS systems. This suggests Singapore might view bilateral engagement as more productive than multilateral initiatives like the Board of Peace.
Quiet Diplomacy: When Trump insulted ASEAN by sending a low-level delegation to a 2019 summit (leading many leaders to boycott), Singapore did not publicly criticize but worked behind the scenes to maintain relationship continuity.
Recent Recalibration: However, Lee Hsien Loong’s recent public statements about US unreliability suggest Singapore may be shifting from its traditionally ultra-cautious public posture to a more forthright acknowledgment of challenges in the relationship.
Singapore’s Strategic Options
Option 1: Polite Decline or Silence
Singapore could follow the path of most European nations by remaining publicly silent on any invitation or politely declining through diplomatic channels. This would allow Singapore to:
- Avoid legitimizing a structure that contradicts its multilateral principles
- Prevent setting a precedent for pay-to-play international organizations
- Maintain flexibility to reassess if the Board evolves in unexpected ways
Risk: This could be interpreted as snubbing Trump personally, potentially inviting tariff retaliation or other economic pressure. Trump has shown willingness to punish nations he perceives as insufficiently supportive.
Option 2: Conditional Engagement
Singapore could express interest in participating but only under substantially revised terms:
- Proposing a rotating chairmanship rather than Trump’s lifetime appointment
- Advocating for decision-making based on consensus rather than chairman approval
- Suggesting the Board operate under UN mandate rather than as an alternative
- Offering technical expertise or hosting services rather than the $1 billion fee
Risk: Trump has shown little willingness to compromise on his initiatives’ fundamental structure. Conditional engagement might simply delay a decision while offering no real path forward.
Option 3: Tactical Participation
Singapore could join with a three-year term (no financial contribution) while maintaining clear public statements about its continued support for the UN system and rules-based order. This would allow Singapore to:
- Maintain access to discussions that might affect regional stability
- Demonstrate willingness to engage with US initiatives
- Retain ability to exit after three years if the Board proves problematic
- Use its participation to advocate for more multilateral and transparent decision-making
Risk: Even nominal participation could be seen as legitimizing a structure that undermines the UN. It could also constrain Singapore’s ability to criticize the Board’s decisions if they conflict with its interests.
Option 4: ASEAN-Coordinated Response
Singapore could work with other ASEAN members to develop a collective response, either advocating for ASEAN as an institution to engage with the Board or establishing red lines for individual member participation.
Risk: ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making makes rapid, unified responses difficult, especially when members like Cambodia and the Philippines have strong incentives to align with US preferences. A failed coordination effort could leave Singapore isolated.
The Broader Context: US-Singapore Relations in 2026
Singapore’s decision on the Board of Peace occurs against the backdrop of evolving bilateral relations. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s January 2, 2026 phone call with President Trump—their first substantive engagement—emphasized the 60th anniversary of diplomatic ties and Singapore’s invitation to the G20 summit in Miami.
This suggests both sides seek to maintain the relationship’s fundamentals, but several concerning trends persist:
Trump’s Unpredictability: As Lowy Institute analysis notes, Trump’s approach to foreign policy “has created a destabilizing global strategic environment that runs contrary to Singapore’s interests.” His threats against Denmark and Panama, attacks on multilateral institutions, and willingness to use military force show a leader who views international relations through a highly personal and transactional lens.
The Venezuela Precedent: Trump’s approach to forcing regime change in Venezuela through economic coercion has raised alarm bells in Singapore, with Bloomberg reporting that small nations see this as an existential threat to sovereignty. The Board of Peace, with its chairman-controlled structure, could become another tool for such coercion.
Pax Silica Initiative: Trump has named Singapore—alongside Australia, Japan, and South Korea—as part of “Pax Silica,” a strategic initiative on critical minerals and AI supply chains. This represents a significant economic opportunity but also ties Singapore more closely to US-China competition, potentially limiting its strategic flexibility.
Defense Relationship: The continued US military presence at Changi Naval Base and Singapore’s access to advanced American weapons systems create dependencies that Trump could leverage for compliance on initiatives like the Board of Peace.
What Does Singapore Value Most?
To assess Singapore’s likely response, we must consider its hierarchy of foreign policy priorities:
1. Sovereignty and Independence: As a small nation surrounded by larger powers, Singapore guards its sovereign decision-making jealously. Joining a board where Trump holds veto power over all decisions would compromise this.
2. Economic Prosperity: Singapore’s open economy requires stable global trade and investment flows. While the US market is important, so is maintaining good relations with China, Europe, and regional partners. The Board of Peace could force Singapore into choosing sides.
3. Regional Stability: ASEAN’s stability and cohesion directly affects Singapore’s security and prosperity. Any initiative that fragments ASEAN or undermines regional cooperation contradicts this priority.
4. Rules-Based Order: Perhaps most fundamentally, Singapore has consistently argued that small states can only thrive in a system governed by rules rather than power. The Board of Peace represents a reversion to great power politics.
5. US Partnership: While important, the US relationship is not valued for its own sake but for what it represents—a counterbalance to other powers and a provider of regional security. If the US itself becomes a source of instability and unpredictability, the relationship’s value diminishes.
The Broader Question: Is This the End of Small State Diplomacy?
The Board of Peace represents something more profound than just another Trump initiative. It symbolizes a potential paradigm shift in international relations—from a system theoretically governed by international law and multilateral consensus to one explicitly organized around great power prerogatives and personal relationships between leaders.
For Singapore, which has thrived by leveraging multilateral institutions to amplify its voice and protect its interests, such a shift poses an existential challenge. As MFA’s 2025 statement acknowledged: “The world is in transition from the post-Cold War order to a more uncertain era, marked by disruptions to global trade, the weaponization of economic tools, rising risks of conflicts, weakening multilateralism, sharper major power rivalry, and rapid technological change.”
The Board of Peace accelerates all these negative trends. It weaponizes international peace efforts by making participation conditional on billion-dollar payments. It weakens multilateralism by positioning itself as an alternative to the UN. It sharpens major power rivalry by essentially creating a US-led coalition that excludes Russia and China.
Practical Impacts on Singapore
Beyond the philosophical implications, the Board of Peace could have several concrete impacts on Singapore:
Economic Impacts
Trade Uncertainty: If the Board becomes a vehicle for Trump to reward compliant nations and punish others through preferential trade access, Singapore’s non-participation could lead to relative economic disadvantage compared to participating ASEAN neighbors.
Investment Flows: Singapore’s role as a financial hub depends on stability and predictability. A fragmented international system with multiple competing governance structures could reduce investor confidence and capital flows through Singapore.
Business Confidence: Singaporean businesses operating regionally would face increased complexity and uncertainty if different countries align with different international frameworks, potentially requiring separate strategies for Board members versus non-members.
Strategic Impacts
US Military Presence: The United States Navy’s access to Changi Naval Base could become a bargaining chip if Singapore declines Board participation. While unlikely, Trump’s transactional approach makes even defense relationships subject to renegotiation.
ASEAN Leadership: If Singapore takes a different position on the Board than key ASEAN partners, it could complicate the city-state’s traditional role as a bridge-builder and honest broker within the regional grouping.
Middle Power Relations: Singapore has cultivated relationships with middle powers (Japan, South Korea, Australia, EU nations) as part of its hedging strategy. If these countries join the Board while Singapore abstains, it could create new alignment patterns that exclude Singapore from emerging coalitions.
Diplomatic Impacts
UN Relationships: Singapore has been active in UN peacekeeping and governance initiatives. If the Board significantly weakens the UN, Singapore would lose a key platform for influence.
Credibility With Other Small States: Singapore has positioned itself as a voice for small nations’ interests. How it handles the Board of Peace will be watched by other small states facing similar dilemmas, potentially establishing Singapore as either a model of principled resistance or of pragmatic adaptation.
China Relations: Beijing will closely watch Southeast Asian responses to the Board. Singapore’s decision could affect its ability to maintain its carefully calibrated equidistance between Washington and Beijing.
What We Can Expect
Based on Singapore’s historical patterns and current strategic environment, several predictions seem reasonable:
1. Public Silence, Private Engagement: Singapore will likely avoid making any strong public statements for or against the Board, while using diplomatic channels to convey concerns to Washington and coordinate quietly with like-minded nations.
2. Focus on Bilateral Relationship: Rather than treating the Board as a binary join/decline decision, Singapore will likely emphasize the broader US-Singapore relationship, seeking to secure its interests through direct engagement rather than through the Board structure.
3. ASEAN Coordination Efforts: Behind the scenes, Singapore will likely work with other concerned ASEAN members to develop common positions or at minimum to ensure that any member participation doesn’t undermine ASEAN Centrality.
4. Continued UN Support: Regardless of its Board of Peace position, Singapore will likely increase its vocal support for UN institutions and multilateralism, seeing this as essential for its long-term interests.
5. Hedging and Diversification: Singapore will accelerate its efforts to diversify partnerships beyond the US, deepening ties with Europe, Japan, South Korea, and even China to reduce dependence on any single partner.
The Uncomfortable Truth
Perhaps the most uncomfortable aspect of the Board of Peace for Singapore is that it exposes limitations in the city-state’s traditional diplomatic approach. Singapore has long succeeded by being useful to multiple powers, by providing neutral ground for dialogue, by advocating for principles that benefit small states, and by maintaining impeccable credibility.
But Trump’s approach assumes that such contributions are worth less than billion-dollar payments, that principles are negotiable, and that small states’ primary role should be supporting great powers’ initiatives rather than shaping international norms.
If this becomes the new paradigm of international relations, Singapore will need to fundamentally rethink its foreign policy approach. The Board of Peace may be just one initiative, but it represents a broader trend toward transactionalism, personalism, and great power unilateralism that poses profound challenges for a small state dependent on rules and norms for its survival.
Conclusion: A Decision That Defines an Era
Singapore’s response to Trump’s Board of Peace invitation—whether explicit or through strategic silence—will likely be remembered as a defining moment in the city-state’s foreign policy history. It comes at a time when the international order Singapore helped build and benefit from is under unprecedented strain.
The decision involves weighing immediate pragmatic considerations (maintaining good US relations, avoiding economic retaliation) against fundamental principles (rules-based order, multilateralism, sovereign equality) that have guided Singapore’s foreign policy for six decades.
There may be no “good” option—only choices with different trade-offs and risks. But Singapore’s decision, and how it explains and defends that decision, will send important signals about what kind of international system the city-state believes is worth fighting for, and what prices it is willing to pay for principle versus pragmatism.
As the world watches this drama unfold, one thing is clear: the Board of Peace is not really about peace—it’s about power, influence, and the future architecture of international relations. For Singapore, and for small states everywhere, the stakes could not be higher.