Ever since US President Donald Trump formally established his Board of Peace on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in January, it has endured concerns over a variety of issues, not least its potential to undermine the United Nations, with Trump stating it could potentially replace the UN. It has been described as a grouping of largely oppressive and authoritarian world leaders and their envoys including Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Hungarian equivalent Viktor Orban.The board, which met for its inaugural session on February 19 – a day before the US Supreme Court handed Donald Trump the worst defeat of his current term by outlawing the tariffs he has imposed on most of the world’s trading nations – is led by Trump himself – for life – with his son-in-law Jared Kushner a major player. Those most affected by its decisions, particularly the Palestinians, are left out. There is concern over what has been called “mandate creep.” Originally authorized by the UN for Gaza reconstruction, Trump has expanded the charter to what is intended as a kind of global conflict resolution mechanism with no geographic limits. The growing threat looming of a US attack on Iran, for instance, could pull in unwilling participants.So far, 25 of the 65 nations on offer have signed up, with almost all the leading nations of Asia either waffling sideways or declining to join. China, India and Japan haven’t responded. EU heavyweights Germany, France, the UK and Italy have opted out in alarm over invitations extended to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Israel’s Benyamin Netanyahu, both of whom have been criticized or investigated for war crimes.Getting on Trump’s good sideThe board has been described as to all intents and purposes a Trump family fund run by Jared Kushner and requiring a US$1 billion down payment to join. Many view joining as a gambit to get on the good side of the US administration. Among those in Asia that have stepped in are Cambodia, which in recent months has sought to curry US favor by reviving relations as Phnom Penh seeks to widen its unipolar relations away from Beijing; and Pakistan, which is trying to balance relations among the US, China, the Gulf States and Iran. Mongolia, Vietnam and Indonesia are the others.All are seeking to in effect buy casualty insurance in case the hot breath of Donald Trump’s tariff policy, momentarily defanged by the US Supreme Court just as Vietnam and Indonesia had negotiated new pacts, is somehow reinstated, or to navigate away from non-tariff barriers like local content requirements. As visits to the White House last week by Vietnam’s To Lâm and Indonesia’s Prabowo Subianto demonstrate, membership provides access to Trump himself, with the risk of antagonizing Trump by declining greater than the cost of joining. Mongolia sees the initiative as a way to secure direct engagement with the US and potential economic benefits such as direct flights or investment as well as a diplomatic tool to triangulate ties with the US and reduce dependence on Russia and China.“From my perspective, Vietnam’s engagement with the US-led Gaza initiative reflects Hanoi’s current pragmatism, aimed at maintaining relevance in Washington and mitigating economic and strategic pressures,” said Khanh Vu Duc, an Ottawa-based lawyer and member of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law who writes analysis regularly for Asia Sentinel. “This is not an endorsement of their positions – it is an explanation why Hanoi acts as it does. Hanoi’s current choices may secure short-term advantages, but a truly independent and respected Vietnam must balance strategic engagement with consistent principles.”To Lâm makes progressAs much as any export-oriented country in Asia, Vietnam was particularly exposed to the vagaries of Trump’s trade wrath before the Supreme Court decision. In 2025, Vietnam recorded a cumulative trade surplus of US$20.03 billion, with exports and imports rising by 17.0 percent and 19.4 percent respectively. Hanoi faced 20 percent reciprocal tariffs on originating goods. However, Trump’s meeting last week with To Lâm – after Lâm attended the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace – was apparently successful. The US leader said he would work to remove Hanoi from lists of countries restricted in accessing U.S. advanced technology, according to a summary of the talks posted on the news website of the Vietnamese government. It would be difficult to envision a more dramatic quid pro quo. Vietnam now benefits under Trump’s retaliatory announcement that he would unilaterally raise a new global tariff to 15 percent on all imports, which is legal for 150 days under the US Trade Act of 1974.For Indonesia, Prabowo has made no secret of his ambition to elevate his role in global diplomacy. He described the decision as an expression of Indonesia’s “active role in promoting peace in Gaza,” framing it as part of the country’s longstanding humanitarian commitment and dedication to conflict resolution. As with Vietnam, Indonesia’s trade negotiations coincided with the Board of Peace’s first meeting. Indonesia reached a landmark reciprocal trade agreement, with tariffs on Indonesian goods at 19 percent down from the previous 32 percent, with companies from both nations reaching 11 deals worth US$38.4 billion covering computer chips, critical minerals and oil field recovery, only to have it obviated the next day.There was protest and public criticism focused on longstanding grievances against Lâm’s leadership in Vietnam as he headed for Washington, with activists and NGOs highlighting jailed political prisoners, many sentenced during Lâm’s tenure as Minister of Public Security, although nothing specifically related to the Board of Peace.But in Indonesia, “what the government presented as a diplomatic milestone has quickly become a lightning rod at home,” writes Ainur Rohmah, who reports regularly on Indonesia for Asia Sentinel. “For decades, Indonesia has positioned itself as one of the world’s most vocal advocates of Palestinian independence. It does not recognize Israel as a state and has consistently championed Palestinian statehood in international forums. Against that backdrop, Indonesia’s decision to join a body conceived by Trump — and perceived by many as closely aligned with Washington’s strategic interests — has ignited controversy and prompted pointed questions about Jakarta’s true posture in the Gaza conflict.” The Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, known by its Indonesian acronym YLBHI, was among the first civil society groups to denounce the move. In a sharply worded statement, the organization argued that membership in the US-backed body amounted to a betrayal of the Indonesian public’s longstanding solidarity with Palestine. Of particular concern was a proposal, floated in early discussions, that Indonesia could dispatch thousands of troops to assist the United States and Israel in what was described as a demilitarization effort targeting Hamas in Palestinian territory. For critics, such a deployment would set a troubling precedent, potentially undermining Palestinian sovereignty and signaling a shift in Indonesia’s traditionally pro-Palestinian foreign policy.The Foreign Ministry moved quickly to tamp down the controversy, insisting that payment of the US$1 billion entry fee was not mandatory and that Indonesia had made no binding financial commitment. But the clarification did little to quiet suspicions about the strategic calculations behind Jakarta’s decision. Several foreign policy analysts have argued that Indonesia’s membership appears driven more by presidential ambition than by clear national interest. Prabowo, who has sought to cultivate an image as a decisive and globally engaged leader, has been notably active on the international stage. His participation in the board, some observers say, reflects a desire to position himself as a key figure in efforts to resolve the Palestinian conflict. “Prabowo wants to be seen not just as a regional leader but as a global statesman,” said one Jakarta-based analyst. “The Gaza issue offers a stage with enormous symbolic weight.”