Poland’s Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski on Friday publicly expressed serious reservations about Warsaw joining the “Board of Peace”, the new multinational initiative launched by US President Donald Trump to oversee post-conflict reconstruction, particularly in the Gaza Strip.
Speaking during a press briefing in Washington, Sikorski directly challenged the proposed financial obligations and overall structure of the body, which was formally announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month.
Under the Board of Peace proposal, permanent member states would each be required to contribute $1 billion to a dedicated reconstruction fund controlled by the board. Sikorski questioned the rationale for Poland’s involvement, stating bluntly: “I want to hear why the Polish taxpayer should rebuild Gaza, which we didn’t destroy.”
He emphasized that any Polish contribution to Gaza’s reconstruction—if deemed appropriate—should come from existing humanitarian and development budgets rather than new mandatory levies. “Poland already supports humanitarian efforts through established channels,” he added, underscoring that any participation must be justified clearly to the public.
The foreign minister also raised concerns about the board’s legal status, governance model, and long-term viability. He described the proposed structure as “very unusual” and expressed uncertainty about its operational framework beyond the current US administration. “What role would the board or its leader play after President Trump leaves office?” Sikorski asked, highlighting the need for greater clarity on accountability, decision-making, and continuity.
Sikorski’s remarks follow signals from Polish President Karol Nawrocki, who indicated that Warsaw may formally discuss the US invitation at a meeting of the National Security Council scheduled for February 11. The issue has already triggered significant political debate in Poland, with divisions emerging across government, opposition, and public opinion.
To gauge sentiment, Sikorski released results of an online poll conducted by his ministry, which showed mixed views among Poles on whether the country should participate in the Board of Peace or accept financial commitments tied to Gaza’s reconstruction. While some respondents supported humanitarian involvement in principle, a substantial portion opposed new financial burdens, particularly given Poland’s existing commitments to supporting Ukraine and domestic economic pressures.
The controversy intensified earlier this week when a public diplomatic exchange occurred between the US Ambassador to Poland and a senior Polish government minister. The ambassador publicly expressed “disappointment” at what he characterized as Warsaw’s lack of enthusiasm for endorsing President Trump’s bid for the Nobel Peace Prize. He suggested that such support would have demonstrated solidarity with the United States on Middle East peace efforts. The comments were met with pushback from Polish officials, who defended their right to evaluate international initiatives on their merits and in line with national interests.
The Board of Peace initiative, as outlined by the Trump administration, aims to coordinate multinational efforts for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction in Gaza following the recent ceasefire. Proponents argue it would provide a structured, transparent mechanism to channel aid, rebuild infrastructure, and prevent the recurrence of violence. Critics, however, have questioned its feasibility, potential politicization, and the precedent of requiring large fixed contributions from participating states.
Poland, a staunch NATO ally of the United States and a significant contributor to European security, has generally aligned closely with Washington on many foreign policy issues. However, the Gaza-related proposal has tested that alignment, particularly given Poland’s geographic distance from the conflict, its own fiscal constraints, and the absence of direct Polish involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Sikorski’s statements reflect a broader cautious approach by the Polish government, which has emphasized that any decision on participation must be transparent, justified to taxpayers, and consistent with Poland’s long-standing support for humanitarian principles and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As the February 11 National Security Council meeting approaches, the debate is expected to intensify in Warsaw, with lawmakers, analysts, and civil society groups weighing the diplomatic, financial, and moral implications of joining or declining the invitation.
The Polish foreign ministry has not yet issued a final position, but Sikorski’s public comments signal that Warsaw will not accept participation—or the associated $1 billion commitment—without a compelling strategic and humanitarian rationale.
