When US President Donald Trump unveiled his grand vision for a global peace initiative at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, he painted a picture of nations united in purpose. Yet before the ink could dry on the signing ceremony, the United Kingdom delivered a conspicuous snub, one that exposes the deep mistrust poisoning international relations over Russia's continued aggression in Ukraine.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper made it clear that Britain would not be attending the Board of Peace signing event, offering a reason that cuts to the heart of a geopolitical paradox: 'how can you invite a man widely accused of destabilising an entire continent to a summit supposedly dedicated to peace?'
'There's a huge amount of work to do,' Cooper told BBC. 'We won't be one of the signatories today, because this is about a legal treaty that raises much broader issues.'
Why Putin Paradox Undermines Trump's Peace Board Initiative
But there's more beneath the surface of Britain's refusal. The true source of London's frustration lies not in the concept of international peacekeeping—an ideal any nation would champion—but in the troubling roster of participants.
Vladimir Putin has been invited to join the peace council, and according to Trump's account, has accepted the invitation. Yet the Russian president's response tells a different story entirely. Putin claimed he was still reviewing the invitation and had not formally responded, a characteristically evasive manoeuvre that hardly signals commitment to the cause.
'We do also have concerns about President Putin being part of something which is talking about peace, when we have still not seen any signs from Putin that there will be a commitment to peace in Ukraine,' Cooper explained. 'And to be honest, that is also what we should be talking about.'
The hypocrisy, as Britain sees it, is staggering. Whilst Trump proposes a board ostensibly focused on bringing peace to Gaza, how can the international community take such declarations seriously when one of the world's most persistent aggressors sits at the table? Ukraine remains engulfed in a conflict that Putin shows no appetite for resolving, yet here he is, invited to influence the future of Middle Eastern peace.
The Murky Details of Trump's Peace Structure
The charter itself reveals another layer of troubling ambiguity. A leaked document shows that countries contributing $1 billion (£745 million) in frozen assets earn permanent board seats; others secure renewable three-year contracts.
Trump, serving as both US representative and chairman, wields unilateral authority to appoint members to the executive board, create subsidiary bodies, and dissolve them at will. The structure, in essence, hands Trump unprecedented power over an international framework, raising uncomfortable questions about what 'peace' actually means when one man controls the levers.
The initial proposal appeared to be designed to address the Gaza crisis, yet the charter mysteriously omits any mention of Palestine. Instead, it mimics NATO's structure, a shift that reframes the entire endeavour from humanitarian intervention to military-style alliance. This structural confusion only deepens the scepticism surrounding the initiative's true purpose.
A joint statement released on Wednesday confirmed participation from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Morocco, and Vietnam.
It's a coalition that, on paper, appears impressively diverse. Yet the absence of Britain—arguably one of the West's steadiest voices on international law and order—speaks volumes about the project's credibility.
Britain's refusal isn't isolation; it's principled resistance to a peace board that invites the aggressor whilst ignoring the victim. Until Putin demonstrates a genuine commitment to ending the war in Ukraine, London's message is unambiguous: signing up to such an initiative would be a betrayal of everything the West claims to stand for.
