Trump Proposes Controversial ‘Board of Peace’ Amid Global Tensions

Former President Donald Trump has announced the formation of a controversial initiative dubbed the “board of peace,” which critics say resembles a privatized version of the United Nations. This move comes just a year into his return to the White House, where his administration has already faced scrutiny over various policies. The board aims to address global conflicts, but its charter and structure raise questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness.

The board was initially intended to oversee a technical committee responsible for the recovery and rebuilding of Gaza. However, its charter makes no specific mention of Gaza. Instead, it emphasizes that “durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed.” This rhetoric suggests a departure from traditional diplomatic frameworks, positioning the board as an international organization focused on securing enduring peace in conflict-affected areas.

Critics argue that this initiative represents an increasing trend of unilateralism in Trump’s second administration. By proposing a board that operates independently of the UN, Trump appears to challenge established international norms regarding conflict resolution. Membership to the board is by invitation from Trump, who retains significant control over its direction. Those invited can join for free for three years or purchase a permanent seat for USD 1 billion, payable in the first year. This raises concerns about the motivations behind such a hefty price tag and what it might imply for the future of international diplomacy.

Historically, the UN has faced criticism for its inability to achieve lasting peace in various conflicts. Yet evidence suggests that it has been effective in post-civil war scenarios and that many failures result from member states obstructing resolutions and support. Trump’s recent directive to withdraw funding from 31 UN organizations, including the peace-building commission, has further fueled speculation about his stance on international governance.

The irony of Trump’s initiative is profound. While the UN is often criticized, its legitimacy as a peace-builder remains relatively intact. Trump’s board, however, is unlikely to garner the same respect, particularly with controversial figures like Vladimir Putin being among the invitees. This raises questions about the board’s credibility and its ability to foster genuine peace.

The implications of this proposal extend beyond mere diplomacy. Trump’s motivations could range from seeking personal profit to positioning himself for potential accolades such as the Nobel Peace Prize. As political leaders evaluate their responses, they face a critical decision: support this corporate model of international governance or push back against it.

French President Emmanuel Macron has already experienced the political cost of not appearing supportive when Trump threatened tariffs on French wine. For other leaders, this may be a pivotal moment to reassess their engagement with Trump’s initiatives, recognizing the potential consequences of endorsing a board that lacks established legitimacy.

In essence, Trump’s “board of peace” could represent a significant shift in global governance, one that prioritizes transactional relationships over collaborative international efforts. As the international community contemplates this proposal, the real question remains: what would happen if Trump “gave a board of peace and no one came?” This scenario could reshape the landscape of international relations for years to come.

The views expressed in this article reflect the analysis of Stefan Wolff, a professor of international security at the University of Birmingham. This piece is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.