The Board of Peace Is A Step Away From Failed International Institutions

Earlier this month, I published an essay titled Eliminating Liberal International Asymmetries. I discussed how President Trump is trying to abolish asymmetries in international law that will necessarily favor progressive views. I wrote about the United Nations, in particular, which has proven to be a failed institution, in large part because it gives stature to all nations.

This much is well known. But less understood is how the United Nations, and other international bodies, have inverted the normal course of international law. In many contexts, a coalition of smaller nations may seek to shape the foreign policy of larger nations that they could not challenge in other contexts. To be sure, the United States and four other superpowers retain a veto on the United Nations Security Council. But in most other contexts, a majority group of minority nations can set the agenda and shape expectations about international authority. It is far more difficult for any nation, including the United States, to withdraw from the United Nations Charter than to withdraw from a bilateral treaty. As a result, great nations have to suffer complaints from weaker nations, all for the sake of faux equality. It has always been a fiction to treat countries with weak influence as having the same stature as countries with strong influence. The United Nations reminds me of a liberal little league: no one keeps score, the best players are benched so weaker players have the same number of at-bats, and all the teams receive the same participation trophy regardless of their record.

Recent developments provide some more data points for my analysis. It seems that Trump’s proposed Board of Peace is not limited to the conflict in Gaza. Rather, Trump seems to be establishing something of on alternative to the United Nations. The United States would invite members to join, and they would have to play a $1 billion entrance fee. Only the largest, most-powerful nations will be able to participate.

The New York Times has some details, but much remains unclear:

President Trump’s “Board of Peace” is billing itself as a new international peacekeeping body — and permanent membership won’t come cheap.

Mr. Trump is inviting countries to join beyond a three-year term, if they’re willing to cough up more than a billion dollars in cash within the board’s first year, according to a draft of the board’s charter reviewed by The New York Times.

And while the board was conceived as part of Mr. Trump’s plan to oversee Gaza, there is no mention of Gaza in the charter. That omission added to speculation that the group may have a broader mandate to cover other conflicts and could even be aimed at creating a U.S.-dominated alternative to the United Nations Security Council. . . .

The board’s charter was sent out with invitations to potential members over the weekend. A copy reviewed by The Times was verified by an official on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate diplomacy. News of the $1 billion buy-in was previously reported by Bloomberg.

On Friday, the White House announced the board’s members would include Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, and Ajay Banga, the head of the World Bank.

Several countries said they had received invitations to join, including Argentina, Canada, Egypt and Turkey. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also been invited, the Jordanian Foreign Ministry announced on Sunday. . . .

The charter appears to outline a much more ambitious role for the board than the one described in Mr. Trump’s plan for Gaza, published in October 2025, as well as the subsequent Security Council resolution.

The board’s mission, according to the charter, is to seek “to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict” and “to undertake peace-building functions in accordance with international law.”

The preamble emphasizes the need for what it calls “a more nimble and effective international peace-building body” and laments that “too many approaches to peace-building foster perpetual dependency and institutionalize crisis rather than leading people beyond it.”

According to the charter, the board is expected to meet for voting at least annually, and expenses are to be funded through voluntary contributions from member states or other sources. The charter does not elaborate on the peacekeeping efforts.

For nearly six decades, there has been something called a “peace process” in Israel. Can something that has failed for six decades still be called a process? Indeed, Palestinians are unique in that they can inherit refugee status. And UNRWA, the United Nations relief agency, was Hamas terrorists. There is perpetual dependency on these institutions, that are not actually equipped to ended crises.

Will this Board of Peace supplant the United Nations Security Council? Who knows. But Trump, as usual, is trying to shatter paradigms in nearly every corner of the globe.