Donald Trump Proposes ‘Board of Peace’ as Alternative to UN at Davos

Nihma Abdallah

Staff Writer

United States President Donald Trump rarely leaves an international stage without controversy following, with his speech about his new “Board of Peace” project at the World Economic Forum in Davos being no exception. Among a series of wide-ranging and often erratic announcements, Trump revealed one of his most ambitious foreign policy proposals yet, a new international body deemed the “Board of Peace.” This board, according to the White House, is intended to bring security, prosperity, and peace to Gaza. Many invited nations, including but not limited to steadfast allies of the U.S. such as Canada and Italy, actually rejected membership due to concerns over the proposal. 

Contentions have not dissipated since Davos. The Independent says the United Kingdom and a host of other major U.S. allies have snubbed Donald Trump’s high-profile signing ceremony to kickstart his Gaza Board of Peace, with France, Norway, and Sweden having indicated they will not join. The refusals reflect the deep unease among many nations who believe that there may be ulterior motives to this ‘peace proposal.’ 

The Board of Peace was initially brought into conversation as a mechanism to bring a ceasefire to Gaza and oversee its postwar governance. Trump’s proposals included redevelopment initiatives such as a “New Gaza” and a “New Rafah,” which appeared to resemble a real estate-style project rather than a traditional peace framework. The absence of Palestinian representatives at the decision-making level was another key component, as noted by Al Jazeera, that has raised pressing questions. 

Moreover, there has been no appearance of keeping personal motives confidential. The President asserted that as soon as the board was finalized, “we can pretty much do whatever we want to do.” This statement, along with concerns over leadership, are some imperative reasons as to why there are intensifying fears that the U.S. is attempting to dismantle the existing international order in favor of a system shaped largely by Trump himself. 

The recent foreign policy trajectory of this administration’s isolationist posture has done very little, if anything, to ease these concerns. According to The Washington Post, earlier this month the Trump administration withdrew from 66 international organizations, many of them UN related agencies. NBC News reports that the head of UN affairs at the International Crisis Group said the move was “a very clear vision of wanting international cooperation on Washington’s own terms.” 

Considering the current situation, many wonder if the idea of the board being a complement to already existing UN agencies is a facade meant to distract the international community from Trump’s new replacement or alternative. Despite attempts made by Trump to counteract these accusations by affirming the idea that this board is going to work alongside the UN, his actions have done relatively little to reassure skeptics. At the televised launch of the board, he suggested that its mandate could expand well beyond Gaza, dispiriting countries that believed they were being asked to support a limited, time-bound initiative. 

President Trump’s unpredictability has also played a wide role in deterring many and has brought a sentiment among many nations that the board lacks legitimacy. For instance, he repeatedly used trade threats as leverage against reluctant partners. At Davos, he warned of punitive 100 percent tariffs on French wine in response to France’s refusal to join the board.

Another major shift has emerged in regard to changing diplomatic relationships, specifically the invitation for membership sent to Russia. This invitation was not taken lightly by certain Western allies and has resulted in many disputes over the idea of the Russian president being part of a body tasked with promoting peace while in a war with Ukraine. This decision highlighted how access to the board, and to Washington, can be granted or withdrawn based on political alignment or personal disputes. Concerns have also been pointed out by skeptics regarding the Board’s Charter specifically. The Times of Israel states: “Decisions shall be made by a majority of the Member States present and voting, subject to the approval of the Chairman (Trump), who may also cast a vote in his capacity as Chairman in the event of a tie.” 

This concentration of power has alarmed observers who see the Board of Peace not as a multilateral institution, but as a personalized framework designed to consolidate American influence at a time when U.S. dominance is increasingly challenged. Furthermore, for a board that is meant to be tasked with overseeing the postwar management of Gaza, The Times of Israel asserts the notable failure that the charter does not even mention Gaza.

Image courtesy of Getty Images.