Editor's note: Kong Qingjiang, a special commentator for CGTN, is the vice dean of the School of International Law, China University of Political Science and Law. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Never in history has there been an international organization more bizarre than the Board of Peace (BoP) championed by U.S. President Donald Trump, the "charter" of which was signed by 19 sovereign countries on January 22.

The constitutions of other international intergovernmental organizations (IIOs) are drafted by an official committee consisting of representatives of governments or eminent persons in accordance with pre-set procedures. However, the BoP's charter was drafted reportedly by Trump's aides alone.

There has been no collective deliberation. The draft was leaked and published by The Times of Israel on January 18, several days ago before its official signing in Davos. That is to say, the other signatory states had no voice in the making of the charter.

Unlike most IIOs whose membership is accessible to either all sovereign states or relevant states, the BoP membership is available only to invited states. Whether a state is eligible or not rests exclusively on the whim of Trump.

Moreover, unlike other IIOs whose members may be expelled only by the decision of the competent body of the IIOs, under the BoP's charter, its chair may dispel an existing member at will.

Unlike other IIOs whose members have an equal footing, the BoP has two tiers of membership: Permanent membership and membership subject to renewal by the chair every two years.

According to the BoP charter, permanent membership is for states willing to donate $1 billion. Thus it is likely to form a hierarchical, U.S.-centric coalition that excludes most developing nations.

In addition, unlike other IIOs whose decision-making power rests in a standing body elected by all member states, the BoP's decision-making power primarily goes to an executive board whose members and chair are handpicked. Although the decisions are to be made by a majority vote, they will be approved or vetoed by the chair.

Given that Trump will be the inaugural chair, who may serve until voluntary resignation or incapacity, he will be in a position to monopolize the BoP for the rest of his life. 

Perhaps the most alarming feature of the BoP is that it is not fit to undertake its task. It has given itself the mandate to address such issues as international peace and world order that require the legitimate authorization of the international community as a whole.

Given its special designs, no reasonable person would be convinced that it can claim to be the legitimate representative of the international community and that the decision-making process of this selective club is legitimized.

Experts worry that the BoP is potentially intended to seize power from the UN Security Council (UNSC), whose responsibility it is to maintain international peace and security.  

The UNSC had approved of the BoP only as a Gaza-focused transitional body and only till 2027. Its task was to coordinate reconstruction, oversee a transitional administration, ensure demilitarization (including disarming Hamas), deploy an International Stabilization Force to maintain security and train a new Palestinian police force. 

But Trump obviously doesn't want to stop here. His BoP has underlying purposes as well, combining Gaza-specific conflict resolution with broader ambitions for reshaping global governance and advancing U.S. influence.

The BoP charter defines it as an international organization aiming to "promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict."

Trump aspires to expand the BoP's role beyond Gaza to resolve global conflicts, framing it as a "bold new approach" to global peacemaking.

As a matter of fact, Trump has also openly suggested the BoP "might" replace the UN (while claiming the UN should continue to exist), viewing the UN as underperforming.

In this context, it is fair to say that the BoP is a tool to marginalize the UN, create a U.S.-dominated parallel order and bypass multilateral processes to directly enforce U.S. interests, with Trump retaining sweeping authority as inaugural chairman, including veto power and member removal rights.

The BoP provides a streamlined, U.S.-controlled channel to implement policies without negotiating with non-aligned states, so that the U.S. may expand its influence in the Middle East (e.g., over Israel and Palestinian governance), and counter the perceptions of declining U.S. global leadership by setting a new peace and security agenda.

Embodying Trump's preference for unilateralism and direct "deal-making" in global affairs, the BoP comes as a broader bid to reassert U.S. hegemony, challenge the UN-led order and build a transactional, U.S.-dominated coalition – all the while burnishing Trump's political brand.

However, Trump should be reminded that no hegemonic power, however well disguised, can run counter to the tide of multilateralism. And the world should be reminded that no hegemonism can succeed in the era of globalization. 

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)