Trump's 'Board of Peace': A Radical Vision for Global Conflict Resolution
A significant development at the World Economic Forum in Davos will be the formal signing of the charter for what has been termed the "board of peace." This initiative represents a major project championed by former US President Donald Trump, who has already nominated himself as the board's chair indefinitely. Originally conceived as part of his Gaza peace plan, the board's mandate has expanded dramatically, now aiming to settle disputes across the globe.
From Gaza Focus to Global Ambitions
The board of peace has evolved far beyond its initial stated purpose of addressing peace in Gaza, which received UN approval last November. This expansion marks a revolutionary development in international diplomacy. Critics view the project as an attempt to establish what they describe as a "strongman's UN," one dominated by Trump and broader US interests. They argue it promotes a geopolitical model centered on great powers, spheres of influence, and a "might is right" philosophy. Consequently, despite its name and lofty ambitions, the board could pose a further challenge to the established rules-based world order and the principles of international law.
Controversial Membership and Global Reactions
Donald Trump holds the authority to decide the board's membership, having invited dozens of world leaders to participate. The current list includes rulers from the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Vietnam, Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Israel, Turkey, Russia, and Argentina. This composition has raised immediate concerns, as at least two figures—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin—face accusations of war crimes. Other members have problematic human rights records, and the US itself has recently conducted military actions against Venezuela.
Britain, Canada, and the European Union are reportedly examining the plan in detail, with major reservations focusing on a substantial $1 billion "joining fee" and the controversial involvement of Vladimir Putin. France and Norway have outright rejected the offer, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has indicated participation would be improbable for Ukraine given Putin's role. Other nations, including China, India, Pakistan, Jordan, Singapore, and Thailand, remain potential entrants, keeping the board's final shape uncertain.
A Direct Challenge to the United Nations?
The board's founding charter—a term that deliberately echoes the UN's own foundational document—suggests ambitious, perhaps replacement, goals. It states: "Lamenting that too many approaches to peace-building foster perpetual dependency, and institutionalise crisis rather than leading people beyond it; emphasising the need for a more nimble and effective international peace-building body … the parties hereby adopt the charter for the board of peace."
Trump himself has sent mixed signals about the board's relationship with the UN. He has argued that the UN "hasn't been very helpful" and "has never lived up to its potential," suggesting the board might supplant it. However, he has also stated the UN should continue operating "because the potential is so great," leaving the ultimate dynamic between the two bodies unclear.
Trump's Enduring Role and Unilateral Authority
A critical question surrounds what happens when Trump is no longer US president. Through his role as chair, he would effectively continue as a sort of global executive. This arrangement presents obvious complications with another individual in the White House, meaning Trump would not necessarily formally represent the US or make decisions on its behalf. He has also taken the power to name his own successor should he die or retire, cementing his long-term influence over the project.
The charter grants Trump, as chairman, ultimate authority, stating: "Internal disputes between and among Board of Peace Members, entities, and personnel … should be resolved through amicable collaboration, consistent with the organisational authorities established by the charter, and for such purposes, the chairman is the final authority regarding the meaning, interpretation, and application of this charter." This provision solidifies the perception that this is, fundamentally, Trump's board of peace.
The Gaza Connection and Governance Structure
Despite its global ambitions, the board has not entirely abandoned its original focus on Gaza. Its structure includes a general-purpose "executive board," currently composed entirely of Americans plus former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Beneath this sits a multinational "Gaza executive board," which also features Steve Witkoff and Blair. This body is tasked with overseeing the "technocratic" governance of a post-Hamas Gaza.
Prospects for Success: A Daunting Challenge
The board's likelihood of success appears questionable, given the intractable nature of the conflicts it aims to address and the unavoidable conflicts of interest among its prominent members. Like the UN, it will possess no independent military resources, remaining dependent on the willingness of nations to commit forces should arbitration fail.
Because it operates outside the framework of international law and proposes to carve up territory based on power balances, its decisions risk lacking the relative legal and moral authority held by the UN. It might achieve limited success in ending smaller conflicts through threats of sanctions, tariffs, and diplomatic pressure—but only for as long as Trump is involved and can leverage US military might.
In essence, the board of peace represents a return to a 19th-century model of international relations, reminiscent of forums like the Congress of Vienna (1815) and the Congress of Berlin (1878), where great powers redrew maps and signed treaties. However, assurances that the board will "renounce or end war as an instrument of policy" ring hollow when examining its current membership. In the immediate term, it would not prevent Trump from pursuing actions like a hypothetical invasion of Greenland—a point underscored by the notable absence of an invitation for Denmark to join the board.
