Why Pakistan joined Trump's Board of Peace

Last week, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, around 20 countries, including Pakistan, signed up for President Donald Trump's newly announced Board of Peace. Notably, no major European country showed up. Hungary was the only European participant and it is, in any case, a close ally of Russia. Moscow has indicated it is reviewing the proposal, while China has confirmed receiving the invitation but has not yet said whether it will join.

In Pakistan, the decision triggered a lively and, at times, emotional debate. The government has justified the move, portraying it as both a diplomatic win and a strategic necessity. The opposition and critics, however, have questioned the wisdom of joining a Trump-led initiative, warning of potential long-term implications. The biggest concern revolves around Gaza. Critics fear that the US could use the so-called Board of Peace to advance Israel's agenda, bury the already fragile two-state solution and sideline Palestinian aspirations altogether. There is also anxiety that the Board of Peace may be Trump's attempt to bypass or even replace the UN system.

These fears are not entirely unfounded. Initially, the Board of Peace was floated as a mechanism to implement the second phase of the Gaza peace plan. Yet, a closer look at its charter raises eyebrows. The document does not mention Gaza even once. According to the preamble, "The Board of Peace... seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict. The Board of Peace shall undertake such peace-building functions in accordance with international law and as may be approved in accordance with this Charter."

The language is broad, almost deliberately vague. That vagueness has fueled fears in Pakistan that Islamabad could be pressured, at some point, to support or even participate in efforts aimed at disarming Hamas or other Palestinian resistance groups — a scenario that would be politically toxic at home and unacceptable in principle.

However, there is a catch. Article 2 of the charter places clear limits on what the Board of Peace can demand.

Article 2.2(b) states: "Each Member State shall support and assist with Board of Peace operations consistent with their respective domestic legal authorities. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to give the Board of Peace jurisdiction within the territory of Member States, or require Member States to participate in a particular peace-building mission, without their consent."

Contrary to popular perception, this clause provides Pakistan with considerable room for maneuver. Membership does not mean automatic endorsement of every decision or mission undertaken by the Board of Peace. Participation remains voluntary and subject to domestic laws and political red lines. Pakistani officials have already made it clear that any international force mandated to enforce peace through coercion or to disarm Hamas is a red line Islamabad will not cross.

There is a well-known adage in diplomacy: if you are not at the table, you will be on the menu. For Pakistan, staying out entirely would mean forfeiting any influence over a process that may, willingly or unwillingly, shape future discussions on Gaza, the Middle East, and global peace mechanisms. Being on the wrong side of Trump has, in the past, translated into severe political and economic consequences for countries.

In this scenario, Islamabad appears to have concluded that being inside the tent with safeguards and clearly defined red lines is a better option than standing outside and watching decisions being made.

Pakistan's decision to join Trump's Board of Peace does not signal a shift in its principled stance on Palestine. Rather, it reflects a pragmatic attempt to remain relevant, engaged and protected in an unforgiving international system where absence can be far more costly than cautious participation.