The international landscape of peace initiatives has become increasingly complex with the emergence of President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace. While intended to address global conflicts, particularly in Gaza, the initiative is raising concerns about its potential impact on established international organizations like the United Nations. The initiative, launched in January , has sparked debate about its role and whether it will complement or compete with existing diplomatic efforts.
The Board of Peace was formally endorsed by the UN Security Council in November , following the Israel-Hamas cease-fire, with a mandate focused on Gaza through the end of . However, President Trump has signaled ambitions that extend beyond this initial scope, potentially aiming to establish an alternative to the UN, a body he has previously distanced the US from by withdrawing from several of its agencies. This broader vision includes offering permanent membership on the board to countries that contribute a $1 billion fee within the first year, with a three-year term available for those who do not meet this financial requirement.
As of this week, at least 27 countries have joined the Board of Peace, with others, including Italy, Greece, and South Korea, as well as the European Union, participating as observers. Member states have reportedly pledged over $5 billion towards humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts in Gaza. Despite this initial support, the Board of Peace is facing resistance from several key democracies, who express concerns about its structure and potential implications for the UN.
A significant concern, voiced by a Swiss diplomat, centers on the possibility of antagonism with the UN. The diplomat stated, “We analyze this fact a lot if the Board of Peace could compete with the UN, which obviously no one wants, especially not even us who are a country that believes a lot in the UN, in multilateralism.” This sentiment reflects a broader apprehension that the Board of Peace could undermine the established framework of international cooperation.
The structure of the Board of Peace, with President Trump as chair and possessing significant authority, is also contributing to the hesitancy among some nations. As described by analysis in , the board’s charter grants President Trump extensive control, designating him as having ultimate decision-making power over various aspects of the organization. This concentration of power has raised questions about the board’s impartiality and its potential to serve as a vehicle for unilateral US foreign policy.
The timing of the Board of Peace’s formation coincides with a period of renewed support for the United Nations. Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently welcomed UN Secretary-General António Guterres to 10 Downing Street, signaling a strengthening of ties between the UK and the UN. This development, alongside the UN Security Council’s endorsement of Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza, suggests a complex interplay between the new initiative and the existing international order.
The potential for the Board of Peace to evolve beyond its initial focus on Gaza is also a source of concern. President Trump has indicated that the board could address conflicts “as they arise,” raising the possibility of US intervention in a wider range of international disputes. This prospect has prompted some countries to question whether the board is intended to be a temporary mechanism for implementing the Gaza peace plan or a long-term alternative to the UN.
The financial aspect of the Board of Peace, with its $1 billion membership fee for permanent status, has also drawn criticism. Some observers argue that this requirement could create a two-tiered system, where wealthier nations have a disproportionate influence on the board’s decisions. This could potentially marginalize smaller or less affluent countries, undermining the principle of equal representation in international affairs.
The situation remains fluid, and the long-term impact of the Board of Peace remains to be seen. However, the concerns raised by the Swiss diplomat and other international observers highlight the importance of careful consideration and collaboration to ensure that the initiative complements, rather than undermines, the existing framework of international cooperation. The success of the Board of Peace will likely depend on its ability to demonstrate its commitment to multilateralism and its willingness to work within the established structures of the United Nations.
