Executive Summary:

Armenia’s participation in the Board of Peace reinforces the Armenia–U.S. strategic partnership, aims to sustain U.S. engagement in the finalization of the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process, deblocking of regional communications and supporting regional stability in the South Caucasus. This decision is consistent with Armenia’s pursuit of a balanced foreign policy and diversified partnerships.

At the same time, Armenia should engage in proactive communication with the EU and strategic European partners to ensure mutual understanding and continued strategic alignment. It remains essential that the Board of Peace operates in harmony with existing international platforms, complementing the United Nations and other multilateral frameworks that underpin international peace, security, human rights, and development.

Background: The Emergence of the “Board of Peace. 

The “Board of Peace” is a U.S.-initiated, ad hoc diplomatic platform announced in early 2026 and formally launched by United States President Donald Trump through the signing of its founding charter on 22 January 2026 in Davos, during the World Economic Forum. The initiative was first proposed in September 2025 on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, where it was initially framed as a mechanism to support the administration, reconstruction, and economic recovery of the Gaza Strip. Since then, its scope has been broadened, with proponents presenting the Board as a flexible diplomatic format that could, in principle, be applied to other unresolved conflicts, particularly where existing mediation mechanisms face political or operational constraints.

From the outset, the Board has been conceived outside treaty-based multilateral frameworks, relying on direct U.S. engagement with invited states. Its institutional design, legal status, and relationship with established international organizations—most notably the UN—remain to be clarified, situating the initiative within a broader debate on the future of global governance.

International Reactions and Normative Considerations

This initiative follows the United States’ withdrawal over the past year from a number of international commitments, including several UN-related bodies, and has therefore been assessed by some governments in light of broader shifts in U.S. engagement with multilateral institutions.

The launch of the Board of Peace has led governments and policy experts to assess its potential normative and institutional implications, particularly regarding how new diplomatic formats relate to the role of the UN and other established multilateral institutions. Several states have emphasized the importance of ensuring that emerging initiatives complement and support, rather than bypass or weaken, the principles of international law and the UN Charter, especially in the field of peace and security.

Further discussion has focused on the Board’s governance arrangements, including proposals under which permanent membership would reportedly require a financial contribution of approximately USD 1 billion, alongside lower or undefined thresholds for other forms of participation. In this context, governments and experts have underlined the need for greater clarity regarding decision-making procedures, accountability, and coordination with existing multilateral mechanisms. Taken together, these considerations underscore the expectation that diplomatic innovation should remain transparent, inclusive, and consistent with established multilateral norms, particularly at a time of significant geopolitical transformation.

Participation and International Reactions (as of midday of 23 January 2026)

President Trump is reported to have extended invitations to approximately 60 heads of state and government to join the Board of Peace. Participation to date reflects varying national approaches, shaped by differing political priorities, institutional preferences, and domestic considerations.

According to reporting from Davos, the signing ceremony on 22 January 2026 included official representation from nineteen states, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Morocco, Argentina, Bulgaria, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Mongolia.

Attendance signaled political support, but did not in all cases constitute formal accession, as several states described their participation as exploratory or subject to further clarification of the Board’s mandate, governance arrangements, financial terms, or domestic approval procedures. Countries that have formally confirmed participation include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Vietnam, Argentina, Kosovo, Belarus, Hungary, Albania, and Bulgaria.

At the same time, several European countries have declined to join. France has publicly rejected the invitation, reaffirming its attachment to international law and the primacy of the UN Charter over ad hoc diplomatic arrangements. Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have adopted similar positions, citing concerns that the initiative’s structure and mandate could weaken established multilateral peace and security frameworks.

Canada engaged in preliminary discussions and initially signaled interest, but its invitation was subsequently withdrawn after Ottawa declined to commit under the proposed terms, following a Davos speech in which Prime Minister Mark Carney highlighted the erosion of the rules-based international order and the need for middle-power strategic autonomy.

A further group of invited states—including China, India, and Russia—has acknowledged receipt of invitations without confirming participation. Within the European Union, Italy has not yet taken a position, while several other EU member states likewise remain undecided. Engagement by African states has so far been limited to Morocco, with no other African country publicly confirming invitation or participation.

Overall, the pattern of participation reflects diverse national responses, alongside a shared emphasis on maintaining coherence with existing multilateral frameworks, particularly those of the UN and the EU.

Armenia’s Decision to Join: Strategic Considerations

Armenia’s acceptance of the invitation should be understood primarily as a pragmatic decision rooted in the expanding U.S. role within Armenia’s security and deterrence framework. The Armenia–U.S. strategic partnership concluded in January 2025—subsequently operationalized through four Memoranda of Understanding in key strategic fields and reinforced by the TRIPP framework—has become a central pillar of Armenia’s security and development. The Washington Declaration and the initialization of the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement brokered by President Trump on 8 August marked a significant milestone in the peace process and regional stability. The subsequent TRIPP Implementation Framework further strengthened this trajectory.

At the same time, the peace process with Azerbaijan remains incomplete, with unresolved issues and pending steps required to ensure sustainability, including the materialization of deblocking regional communications. Armenia’s participation is likely to aim to maintain the momentum established since 8 August and to secure sustained U.S. engagement in the finalization of the peace process. Armenia’s decision has also been facilitated by the cordial working relationship between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and President Trump, established during the August 8 Washington Summit.

Given Armenia’s pursuit of a balanced foreign policy and diversified partnerships, YCFSP considers Armenia’s participation in international platforms brokered by its strategic partners to be consistent with its broader foreign policy objectives. Participation in the Board helps ensure Armenia’s continued engagement in the U.S.-led diplomatic platforms and may provide an additional channel for the finalization of the peace process with Azerbaijan.

The Importance of the Complementarity and Inclusiveness of the Board of Peace

At the same time, YCFSP believes that the Board of Peace should complement, rather than replace, the existing international platforms. It is essential to address concerns regarding the Board’s relationship with the UN and the post–World War II international legal and normative order. At a time when multilateral institutions are under significant strain, collective efforts grounded in cooperation and dialogue remain essential for peace, security, human rights, and development.

YCFSP also notes with concern the growing differences in approaches to multilateralism among Armenia’s strategic partners, particularly between the U.S. and key European partners. The inclusion of European democracies in international diplomatic initiatives who also have significant economic resources and military capabilities remain essential for the credibility and effectiveness of peace and security efforts.

Balancing Strategic Partnerships: The U.S., the EU, and France

YCFSP maintains that Armenia’s European integration aspirations, its deepening strategic partnership with the EU, already established strategic partnerships with few EU member states, and the forthcoming formalization of Armenia’s de facto strategic partnership with France are equally important pillars of Armenia’s foreign and security policy. The deployment of the EU Mission following Azerbaijan’s September 2022 offensive, together with France’s political support and defence cooperation, has significantly contributed to Armenia’s security and the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Accordingly, Armenia’s engagement with the Board of Peace should be clearly viewed and communicated as complementary to its existing strategic partnerships and its continued commitment to multilateral norms.