In the proposed charter of the Board of Peace, Trump will have the power to veto decisions, approve the agenda, invite members, dissolve the board entirely and designate his own successor. — Reuters
IN the proposed charter of the “Board of Peace” that the United States launched last week, one man has the power to veto decisions, approve the agenda, invite members, dissolve the board entirely and designate his own successor.
His name is spelled out in Article 3.2: “Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural chairman.”
“If Trump, then peace,” Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, one of Trump’s closest allies in Europe, wrote on Facebook after Trump invited him to join the board. “We have, of course, accepted this honourable invitation.”
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Belarus, Pakistan and several more countries have joined the Peace Board in a signing ceremony last Thursday in Davos, Switzerland.
But many officials and experts in international affairs were stunned by the breadth of the initiative, the latest example of Trump taking apart the American-built, post-World War II international system and building a new one, with himself at the centre.
“This is a direct assault on the United Nations,” said Marc Weller, a Cambridge international law professor who specialises in peace negotiations and has worked closely with the global body. “This initiative is likely to be seen as a takeover of the world order by one individual in his own image.”
The United Nations Security Council itself endorsed the creation of a Board of Peace last November in a resolution welcoming the US-brokered peace plan to end Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. According to that resolution, the board is to function as a “transitional administration” through 2027 to oversee the redevelopment of Gaza.
But in unveiling the Board of Peace in the last week, the Trump administration has cast Gaza as only a part of what the new institution would do. While its powers are not defined, its mission would overlap with the UN’s aim of maintaining international peace and security.
“Trump has proven himself a pretty capable and aggressive leader,” said Fred Fleitz, the chief of staff of the National Security Council for part of Trump’s first term. “This is taking advantage of it.”
The proposed charter, seen by The New York Times, says the board would seek to “secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”
“I wish the United Nations could do more,” Trump had said. “I wish we didn’t need a Board of Peace.”
Asked whether he wanted the board to replace the UN, Trump said that it “might.” He added: “I believe you got to let the UN continue because the potential is so great.”
The UN itself has sought to play down any tensions. A spokesperson, Farhan Haq, told reporters that the UN “has coexisted alongside any number of organisations.”
But the Trump administration’s ambiguous messaging about the Board of Peace has added to the head-spinning nature of an extraordinary January in American foreign policy. The attack on Venezuela, the threats of strikes on Iran and Trump’s demands to take over Greenland have all sent the message that the US is seeking to exert its global power in a newly unilateral way.
The Board of Peace, with its sprawling mission and with Trump as its long-term chair, appeared to be an attempt at building an institution to codify the American dominance that the president envisions. Norway, Sweden and France have already said they do not intend to join. The French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said his country would say “no to creating an organisation as it has been presented, which would replace the United Nations,” according to The Associated Press.
“The bond of trust has been broken” between the US and its allies, said R. Nicholas Burns, a former US ambassador to Nato, China and elsewhere. “The overreach by the administration on Greenland and the miscalculation they have made has really brought about a different European view and Canadian view.”
Two weeks ago, Trump withdrew from 66 international organisations that his administration deemed “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful.” He has suggested that he sees his board filling some of that vacuum – offering the world a more assertive brand of American engagement, personified by Trump.
The Board of Peace’s charter says in its opening line that “durable peace” requires “the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed.”
Fleitz, who is now at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank close to the administration, said the decision to include Russia and China among the invited members reflected the intended “broad-based” nature of the board.
“They want to reduce the possibility that various countries will try to sabotage it,” he said.
Russia and China have veto power on the UN Security Council, so they would be likely to look askance at any weakening of the body. But both have also tried to curry favour with Trump.
China has said it was invited but not whether it would accept. President Vladimir Putin of Russia also stopped short of accepting the invitation, but agreed to contribute US$1bil (RM4.1bil) to the board – as long as the money comes out of the Russian assets that were frozen in the West after Putin invaded Ukraine.
The draft charter for the board stipulates the US$1bil fee for countries that seek to stay on for longer than a three-year term. A US official said that the board “will implement the highest financial controls and oversight mechanisms” for the cash it collects, and that “funds will sit only in approved accounts at reputable banks.”
The US official confirmed that Trump could play a central role in the board even after leaving the presidency. Trump can hold the chair “until he resigns it,” the official said. “A future US president, however, may choose to appoint or designate the United States’ representative to the board.” — ©2026 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
