What is Trump’s ‘board of peace’ and could it replace the UN?

One of the more significant moments at the World Economic Forum in Davos will be the formal signing of the charter of the “board of peace”. This is very much a Donald Trump project, and he has already nominated himself as chair of the board, indefinitely. Originally conceived as part of his Gaza peace plan, it is now taking on a far wider role, seeking to settle disputes across the globe.

It is no longer solely concerned with peace in Gaza, as was initially stated and approved by the UN last November. This in itself is a revolutionary development, and critics see it as an attempt to set up a “strongman’s UN” dominated by Trump and US interests, and skewed to a “great powers”/spheres of influence/might is right model of geopolitics. It could, thus, despite the name and lofty ambitions, represent a further challenge to the established rules-based world order and the rule of international law.

Donald Trump decides that, and he’s invited dozens of world leaders to join him. The list so far includes the rulers of: United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Vietnam, Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Israel, Turkey, Russia and Argentina. Thus, at least two figures on the board of peace are accused of war crimes (Netanyahu and Putin), others are problematic in terms of their human rights record, and of course the US itself has recently attacked Venezuela.

In addition, Britain, Canada and the EU are considering the plan in detail; major concerns include the $1bn “joining fee” and the involvement of Putin. France and Norway have rejected the offer, and Zelensky has indicated it would be improbable for Ukraine given Putin’s role. Others, including China, India, Pakistan, Jordan, Singapore and Thailand, may enter.

Its founding “charter” – a telling word, aping the UN – suggests as much: “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 says it might supplant the UN because the latter “hasn’t been very helpful” and “has never lived up to its potential” … but he has also said the UN should continue “because the potential is so great”.

Through this role, he would carry on as a sort of world president. It’s hard to see how this would operate with someone else in the White House, so Trump wouldn’t necessarily formally represent the US or make decisions on its behalf. He has taken the power to name his successor if he dies or retires.

It seems so. For example, in the highly likely event of members of the board of peace having a dispute, the chair – Trump – will make the decisions: “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.”

To be fair, it’s not been forgotten. Under the board of peace we find a general purpose “executive board” – currently all-American, plus Tony Blair – and a multinational “Gaza executive board”. This also has Steve Witkoff and Blair in it, and will oversee the “technocratic” governance of post-Hamas Gaza.

It feels unlikely, given the intractable problems it’s confronted with and the unavoidable conflicts of interest among its leading members. Like the UN, it won’t have any military resources of its own so will still depend on the willingness of nations to commit to support any action where arbitration fails.

Because it works outside international law, and carves up territory according to the balance of power, its decisions lack the relative legal and moral authority of the UN. It might succeed in using threats of sanctions, tariffs and other diplomatic pressure to end some smaller wars – but only for as long as Trump is involved can it call on US military resources.

It is essentially about returning to a 19th-century model of international relations, in which great powers would meet in such forums as the Congress of Vienna (1815) and the Congress of Berlin (1878) to redraw maps and sign treaties. We may be sure, however, that the board of peace will renounce or end war as an instrument of policy. Looking at its membership, far from it. In the immediate future, it wouldn’t stop Trump invading Greenland. Funnily enough, Denmark hasn’t been invited to join the board of peace.