A photograph seldom depicts a global shift, but the picture of President Trump holding hands with the leaders of Indonesia and Pakistan in Davos felt distinctly meaningful. There was something incredibly powerful going on behind the ceremonial ink and press smiles: a change in who gets to negotiate peace and how that peace is constructed.
For many years, traditional Western institutions’ voices have been overwhelmingly repeated in conflict resolution. That chorus is noticeably more varied now that the Board of Peace has been established. Pakistan and Indonesia are actively defining the parameters of this new table, rather than just attending it.
There is gravity and purpose to Indonesia’s involvement. Being the biggest democracy with a majority of Muslims in the world, it offers a very impartial approach to resolving disputes. It is not a ceremonial member of the Board. Jakarta is not just using diplomacy, but reclaiming it by highlighting its commitment to a two-state solution for Gaza and the moral imperative of preserving Palestinian sovereignty.
The pragmatism of Pakistan’s participation in the program is remarkably similar, albeit it is complicated by its complicated history. Islamabad is positioned as an especially dependable bridge in heated international negotiations due to its lengthy credibility in multilateral forums and lack of serious disagreements with big powers. Its focus on self-determination and its measured approach to Gaza have given it a role that many would not expect: stabilizer.
| Key Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Initiative Name | Board of Peace (BoP) |
| Led By | U.S. President Donald Trump |
| Key New Members | Indonesia and Pakistan |
| Mandate | Oversee Gaza ceasefire, reconstruction, and peace-building |
| Indonesia’s Role | Advocate for Palestinian rights, support a two-state solution |
| Pakistan’s Role | Support self-determination, build U.S. ties, assert diplomatic neutrality |
| Strategic Shift | Multipolar rebalancing and rising influence of Islamic middle powers |
| Reference | [Nikkei Asia, The Nation, Radio Pakistan, Sekretariat Kabinet Indonesia] |
The global system has moved past its inflexible East-versus-West foundations during the last ten years. Growing trust gaps, economic realignments, and the emergence of regional consensus-building have all contributed to the acceleration of this evolution in recent months. The Board of Peace is gaining traction in this environment, and Pakistan and Indonesia are flourishing as diplomatic architects.
Both countries have established a strategic rhythm by combining their common foreign policy objectives. Jakarta and Islamabad’s once-peripheral ties have become remarkably durable through a succession of bilateral defense and economic accords. They now participate in the BoP via these cooperative threads, which gives their comments more substance than hyperbole.
A senior counselor at the foreign ministry explained Indonesia’s objective as “redefining the perimeter” rather than “choosing sides” during my reporting trip to Jakarta in late 2025. I was struck by that framing. It seemed to encapsulate a calm assurance that was focused on positional leverage and pragmatic idealism rather than being constrained by established alliances or ideas.
Pakistan has also adopted that perspective. Its Foreign Office explained in a well-crafted statement that joining the BoP was a way to more vehemently support Palestine rather than a change from its position on the issue. At home, critics questioned whether those ideals would be compromised by supporting a Trump-led platform. However, the government made it very clear that inclusion did not equate to compromise.
That clarity is probably going to be crucial. Neutral but forceful actors are becoming crucial to long-term peace frameworks as hard power gives way to influence-based diplomacy and global influence spreads. Both nations are filling a void left by larger economies but increasingly disputed in terms of credibility by utilizing soft power and strategic neutrality.
The Board of Peace could easily be seen as just another experimental forum. However, the way it captures the current global landscape is especially inventive. The strategy is based on measured partnerships rather than moral grandstanding. Additionally, this strategy might prove to be quite effective in ending protracted battles like Gaza.
Influence mechanisms are changing. States like Indonesia and Pakistan are influencing results via involvement, tenacity, and purpose rather than dominating through size or economic might. Their ascent aims to supplement historical strengths rather than replace them, frequently with more agility but fewer resources.
Both nations have demonstrated this flexibility in managing public opinion while expanding their BoP responsibilities. Without upsetting current allies, Indonesia has highlighted its dedication to regional stability and human rights. Pakistan, on the other hand, has deliberately presented its engagement as a return to principled diplomacy—a subtly enhanced public image.
After reading Pakistan’s press release, which concluded with the words “in service of dignity and fairness,” I recall stopping. It wasn’t ostentatious or noisy. However, it landed heavily.
The path ahead will not be easy. Peacebuilding is never straightforward, especially in areas as divided as Gaza. Long-term cooperation and ongoing trust will be necessary in addition to negotiation. The presence of countries like Pakistan and Indonesia may be very helpful in this regard. They are respected enough to hold discussions despite not having any historical baggage in the area.
This balance is crucial for early-stage peace platforms such as BoP. It makes room for practical participation while avoiding the dichotomous traps of bloc politics. Indonesia and Pakistan are not just responding to the past; they are creating new chapters by simplifying complicated interests and upholding moral clarity.
This power-sharing arrangement might become the rule rather than the exception in the years to come. Countries that have clear values and adaptable policies will continue to rise as multipolar frameworks replace unilateral mandates. It’s possible that the picture from Davos caught a moment. However, the movement it symbolizes is just getting started.
