by Fareena HABIB
On January 22, 2026 (Davos, Switzerland), President Trump formally inaugurated the “Board of Peace”. He invited around 60 countries, including China, France, and Russia, to join this “Board of Peace”. China remained one of those who opted not to join. It explained that it will firmly adhere to the UN-centered system. It has also insisted that the Global South needs to defend existing multilateral platforms. On the contrary, the 20-point peace agreement, recognized by UNSC, offers promotion of international peacekeeping missions.
The Unilateral Approach of Pr. Trump: A Hurdle to the Board of Peace
Amid the situations of mistrust, how Pr.Trump’s Peace Plan will work? Without the participation of the Global-South, Trump’s board of peace is unlikely to have the support of enough members. To become a truly global body, the Board needs the majority. The major problem with this Board of Peace is the unilateral approach of the USA. Initially pitched as a mechanism to help implement a cease-fire and reconstruction in Gaza, has now been discussed as a structure that centralizes power and authority in a single individual, President Trump himself. Under the draft charter, he would serve as a lifelong chairman with sweeping powers, such as veto authority and control over the board’s agenda. This doesn’t end here, but rather countries invited to join are only being offered a three-year term or can secure permanent membership for a $1 billion price tag. It also raises concerns about equity and transparency. What began as a U.N.-sanctioned body with a narrow regional focus has evolved into an ambitious peace-building club that some see as designed to rival or even sideline established multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. It reflects Trump’s preference for a top-down framework in which he sets the terms and shape of global engagement.
The Rebuttal of China is Being Criticized
There is a criticism that the international system has facilitated a new world order, which would favor China’s increasing strength. Such perspectives on China lack factual support. China wants a system with reforms. It always supported practices of true multilateralism. No matter how the international landscape may evolve, China stayed firmly committed to safeguarding the international system with the UN at its core. So, the answer to the question; Why did China not supported Pr. Trump’s Peace Plan, but rather go for UN centered approach? It lies in its response to this Peace Plan. A new world order under this Board of Peace seems improbable without Beijing’s participation. It also lacked the participation of other countries, such as other countries including India, Russia, Norway, and Sweden.
Weakening of International Institutions and Call for Reforms
After World War 2 the five permanent members were granted the power of veto in the United Nations. The reason behind this decision was the important role these countries played after World War 2. But the problem is that the resolution under discussion in the UN cannot be passed due to a single veto by any of the P-5 members. Consequently, the UN as a whole will be unable to act. And now the emergence of the Board of Peace also paves the way towards the weakening of the UN. A new approach is needed, grounded in international law, regarding the enforcement of this Council’s resolutions. Members of the UN also call for a change to veto powers. China has insisted that countries stick to the UN as a central role in the international system and to help defend and reform the existing order. The reforms must be made in such a way that the sovereignty and borders of every member of the UN must not be compromised by the veto of P-5 members.
In a nutshell, China’s decision to not to participate in President Trump’s Board of Peace reflects a broader tension between unilateral power structures and established multilateral frameworks. The Board’s design, centered on lifelong leadership, financial barriers to membership, and top-down decision-making, stands in stark contrast to the principles of equity and collective governance that underpin the United Nations system. Without the backing of major powers like China, Russia, and Sweden, the Board of Peace faces significant legitimacy challenges and is unlikely to achieve its stated global ambitions. Rather than creating parallel institutions that risk fragmenting the international order, the way forward lies in reforming existing multilateral platforms to address contemporary challenges while preserving the sovereignty and voice of all nations. China’s commitment to UN-centered multilateralism, despite the organization’s imperfections, underscores the enduring importance of inclusive, rules-based international cooperation in an increasingly complex global landscape.
