Croatia Rejects Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ Initiative

Croatia will not take part in U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly announced “Board of Peace”, Prime Minister Andrej Plenković said on January 28, underscoring Zagreb’s reluctance to sign up to an initiative that many European leaders see as a challenge to established international institutions.

Speaking after consultations with President Zoran Milanović, Plenković said the decision followed detailed government analyses and reflected Croatia’s position as a member of the European Union awaiting a coordinated EU response on the proposal’s legal and political implications.

Croatia Steps Back From Trump’s Initiative

“After thorough analyses, the position of the government… is that at this moment Croatia would not join the ‘Board of Peace’ for a number of reasons,” Plenković said, without elaborating on the specific concerns.

Croatia received an invitation earlier this month to join the board, which Mr. Trump unveiled at the World Economic Forum in Davos as part of a broader vision for global conflict resolution. The initiative was presented as a fresh mechanism intended to bypass diplomatic deadlock at the United Nations Security Council.

For Zagreb, however, the timing and structure of the proposal raised red flags. Officials pointed to the need to align foreign policy decisions with Brussels, especially where international law and multilateral commitments are involved.

A Board Positioned Against the U.N.

The “Board of Peace” was launched in Davos with between 19 and 26 countries signing a founding charter, according to statements from Trump’s team. Mr. Trump has said he expects the group’s membership to swell to more than 50 states.

Belarus was named as one of the founding members, a fact that has drawn scrutiny in European capitals. Reports have also suggested that permanent membership may require a $1 billion fee, though it remains unclear which countries, if any, have paid.

At its core, the initiative seeks to position itself as an alternative forum for managing conflicts such as the war in Gaza, following UN Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted in November 2025, which endorsed a ceasefire and reconstruction framework.

“We’re going to have peace in the world,” Mr. Trump said at the launch, framing the board as a decisive break from what he described as ineffective multilateralism.

President Milanović: A ‘Hot Potato’

President Milanović, long a vocal critic of moves he sees as undermining international law, supported the government’s decision and went further in his remarks.

“What am I supposed to do—take responsibility for this decision when Plenković doesn’t know what to do with this hot potato?” Milanović said, urging that the issue be reviewed by Croatia’s National Security Council.

In a statement from his office, the president acknowledged that “any initiative contributing to peace in the Middle East should be welcomed,” but said Croatia should not participate in a body that risks sidelining the U.N. system. The board, he argued, could act like a parallel court, claiming authority without the weight of international consensus.

EU Caution Shapes Zagreb’s Stance

Croatia’s reluctance mirrors broader skepticism within the European Union. Several key U.S. allies, including France and Britain, have expressed doubts about the board’s purpose and its potential to fragment global diplomacy.

For EU member states, foreign policy decisions are rarely taken in isolation. Like a convoy moving at the speed of its slowest ship, Brussels often insists on a shared position before individual countries commit to controversial international initiatives.

Plenković emphasized that Zagreb did not require presidential approval to make the decision, but consultations with Milanović helped ensure institutional unity on an issue likely to resurface as the board seeks wider support.

No Immediate Impact Beyond Diplomacy

While the announcement has stirred debate in diplomatic circles, it carries no direct consequences for daily life, either in Croatia or elsewhere in the EU. There are no implications for trade, travel, or security arrangements, and no knock-on effects have been reported for overseas workers or regional markets.

Instead, Croatia’s refusal highlights a deeper question confronting many mid-sized states: whether new power-driven forums can deliver peace, or whether they risk eroding the already fragile architecture of international law.

For now, Zagreb has chosen caution over experimentation, placing its weight behind the slow, collective machinery of the European Union and the United Nations—institutions it appears unwilling to sideline for an untested alternative.