Is the Board of Peace Challenging the UN? A Geopolitical Deep Dive” UPSC- 26
What is the Board of Peace?
The Board of Peace is a new international body initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump in late 2025 and officially launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026. Originally conceived as part of a plan to stabilize and rebuild the Gaza Strip after the Israel–Hamas war, its mandate and charter now describe it as:
“An international organisation that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”
According to its draft charter:
- The Board is chaired by Donald Trump as inaugural chairman.
- It has an executive board with influential figures (e.g., U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, Jared Kushner).
- Membership can be permanent if a state contributes at least US $1 billion, or it can serve three-year terms otherwise.
- It is intended to function according to international law, but its legal powers and enforcement mechanisms beyond its initial role remain unclear.
Key Players and Participation
United States
- Architect and primary driver of the initiative.
- Trump positions the Board as a “nimble and effective” peace-building body, potentially complementing or even surpassing traditional multilateral frameworks.
Executive Leadership
- Figures such as Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, and Tony Blair are on the executive board, reflecting U.S. political and diplomatic influence.
Member States
- Around 35–56 countries have been invited; some, including Albania, Bulgaria, Egypt, Pakistan, and the UAE, have joined.
- Israel and the U.S. allies in the Middle East are among early supporters.
- Major Western powers such as France, Sweden, and Norway have declined or expressed caution.
- Some countries (e.g., China, Russia) have been respectfully invited but not uniformly committed or are seen as ambivalent.
Controversial Inclusions
- Invitations to leaders like Vladimir Putin and representatives from countries with contested human rights records have drawn criticism.
Stakes and Rationale
Original Purpose: Gaza
The Board’s launch is tied to Gaza’s reconstruction and stabilisation after prolonged conflict, backed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025), which welcomed the establishment of the Board and authorised a temporary stabilisation force.
Trump’s plan positioned the Board as a central mechanism to implement a multi-point peace and reconstruction strategy there.
Expanded Ambitions
Although initially Gaza-focused, the Board’s charter and public statements portray it as a broader peace-building platform for global conflicts — including Ukraine, Venezuela, and beyond.
Financial and Strategic Stakes
- The $1 billion membership fee and structure create a pay-to-play model, raising questions about equity and influence.
- Trump’s strong personal control — including veto and appointment powers — fuels concerns that the Board may act in U.S. strategic interests more than in impartial conflict resolution.
How It Relates to the United Nations
Overlap and Endorsement
The Board was endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution to operate in Gaza’s specific context, giving it a form of mandate within the UN system for that role.
Concerns About Rivalry
Many diplomats and analysts worry that the Board’s broader ambitions could:
- Undermine the UN’s central role in peacekeeping and conflict resolution.
- Create a parallel governance structure unbound by UN checks and multilateral accountability.
- Encourage minilateral arrangements that bypass the Security Council and established international norms.
UN System Versus New Institutionalism
The established UN mechanisms — such as the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter – are designed to authorise peace operations and binding enforcement measures. (
By contrast, the Board lacks clear legal authority outside its Security Council mandate, and its operations are not anchored in the same binding international law framework that guides UN missions.
Analysis: Implications for the World Order
1. Multilateralism vs. Unilateralism
The Board reflects a shift toward informal, leader-centric governance structures that operate alongside or outside established multilateral organizations — potentially weakening universal institutions like the UN.
2. Power Politics
Control over the agenda and membership – especially high financial thresholds and Trump’s chairmanship – suggests that major powers can shape peacebuilding norms outside traditional consensus systems.
3. Legitimacy and Effectiveness
While proponents highlight nimbleness, critics argue that efficiency without legitimacy is insufficient for durable peace — a lesson from past peacekeeping and reconstruction missions.
4. Geopolitical Alignments
Participation patterns reflect geopolitical divides, with some countries aligning with U.S.-led initiatives and others maintaining distance to preserve UN leadership and sovereignty norms.
Conclusion
The Board of Peace is an emerging international peacebuilding initiative conceived by the United States, initially tied to Gaza’s reconstruction, but with ambitions beyond that mandate. Its creation — backed by a UN resolution but not nested within the UN’s formal institutional architecture raises critical questions about sovereignty, multilateralism, institutional legitimacy, and the future of global governance. As the Board evolves, its role relative to the United Nations and other peace mechanisms will be a defining test for the international system’s ability to adapt without fragmenting.
