Davos and Trump's new global order

History will long remember and quote what two speeches, delivered at the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting 2026 at Davos, did — confirmed that the rule-based global order of liberal internationalism is dying. President Trump of the United States addressed the audience comprising global leaders for one hour and twelve minutes. That was a speech by the most powerful person on the planet, and Thucydides famous phrase "strong will do what they can and weak must suffer what they must" sums up and gives us the gist of his speech. And Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, while saying that "if we are not on the table we are on the menu", aptly described the changing American mood and the resulting changing global order that President Trump wishes to lead — a global order designed by and led by a powerful state with no limits and no constraints against the powerless.

To survive in the new global order, the ordinary and medium powers will be asked to adjust, show accommodation, and be willing to go along with the United States because only compliance will buy them safety and security.

This new Trumpian order will facilitate those who comply, and laws will be applied selectively depending upon the identity of the accused (Israel) and victim (Palestinians), as in the case of the Gaza Peace Plan, which is the first salvo being fired in promotion of this order. The rhetoric sells this order as a harbinger of stability over resistance, economic integration over ideological confrontation, and the containment of the axis of resistance, including Iran. But so far, all this is on a piece of paper. The progress the Trumpian order makes in the short term will be determined by the success or failure of the Gaza Peace Plan.

Will the world witness the neo-colonial governance of Gaza and the institutionalisation of Israeli dominance, or will the order be subjected to rejection and sabotage? It is in this context that I would like to write on the prospects of Trump's Board of Peace and Pakistan's participation in it.

President Trump's proposed 'Board of Peace Gaza' explains how the powerful will decide what the powerless deserve; how post-conflict governance will be imposed by the powerful (victors) over the powerless (defeated). Such boards that this new order will create will have their own charter, sidelining the UN charter and UN mechanisms of conflict resolution. The boards will also have their own enforcement force to manage not just Gaza but eventually other crisis-ridden geographic spaces. To secure conflict management, the United States will utilise economic integration as a critical weapon. Humanitarian relief will no longer remain the responsibility of a moral world but a tool of leverage in the hands of a great power. Peace management will precede peace settlement.

The Gaza Peace Board is doing exactly that, proposing to do everything to manage Gaza rather than doing anything about the resolution of the Palestinian question. Statehood, border disputes, illegal settlements, question of Jerusalem and return of refugees is all deferred and the political buy-in of the external actors and also the helpless Palestinians is being made possible through the coercive tactic of this order explained by Prime Minister Carey of Canada in the words that, "if you are not on the table, you are on the menu."

The vulnerability of this peace board lies in how it is perceived by the common people in the Muslim world. People in the Muslim world perceive it as American-designed and American-dominated; they also perceive it as Israel-aligned and so not at the level of the states but at the level of the people. This board merits little credibility. People of the Muslim world may consider it flawed because it prioritises order, demilitarization and aid before resolving the question of sovereignty. Israel is being treated by this board as a dominant military and security actor, and the people of Palestine are only subjects of stabilisation with no consent sought from them in how and if they would like to dwell on this pathway to peace under these imposed conditions.

For Pakistan, the demerits of joining this board of peace are more than its merits. The merit lies in aligning with the United States stabilisation logic in the region and the high diplomatic and economic gains that may come by virtue of this alignment. The demerits are many. Joining this board, Pakistan risks losing its credibility amongst the people of the Muslim world. Most importantly, with one stroke of a pen, Pakistan has weakened its historic standing and narrative not only about Palestine but also about Kashmir.

Depending on what becomes of this Gaza Peace plan, history may judge all those that are aligned with the United States and Israel as those who betrayed the cause of Palestine. Pakistan must question that if Gaza can be placed under an externally managed peace board without resolving the question of sovereignty, couldn't Kashmir be also subjected to a similar Trumpian new order conflict management framework? Would the replacement of conflict management with self-determination favour people of Kashmir or favour Pakistan?

The critics may say what choice Pakistan has. Should it align with the forces of resistance and their ideological and resistance narrative? This, of course, entails a high moral legitimacy but subjects us to grave strategic costs. But is there no third option? The short-term gains are immense for Pakistan, both in the diplomatic and economic domain, but the loss of credibility in the moral domain is a long-term cost that we should not be looking forward to paying. So, what best policy option Pakistan should utilise to safeguard its long-term strategic interests? Like many other countries, Pakistan could also rely on strategic hedging, reject externally imposed political settlement, and also avoid direct alignment with any forces or axis of resistance.

History tells us that the strongest exempt themselves when it is no longer convenient for them to continue. They did that right in our neighborhood in Afghanistan when they withdrew from there, leaving us to live with the troubles they left behind. If the decisions are not well thought out, debated in the parliament, and the will of the people is not implemented in decision-making, the ordinary and the weak are left to lick the wounds resulting from bad strategic decision-making. The consequences of the US-led war on terror are a living example of how many Muslim countries got destabilised and experienced civil wars.