Trump's 'Board of Peace' draws global criticism for challenging UN authority

The United States' newly unveiled "Board of Peace," a body championed by President Donald Trump and backed by a draft charter giving its chair extensive powers, has drawn international criticism for potentially undermining the UN's central role in global conflict resolution.

Trump formally launched the "Board of Peace" at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, presenting it as an international mechanism initially focused on solidifying a ceasefire and post-war transition in Gaza. Trump, who will chair the board, said it was designed to complement the UN's work and board members "can do pretty much whatever we want to do."

However, critics say the board's proposed charter and operational scope extend far beyond the Gaza context outlined in a UN Security Council resolution passed last November, which authorized transitional governance measures limited to the Palestinian territory.

European officials and legal experts have publicly questioned whether the board's mandate sufficiently aligns with the legal authority granted by the Security Council, which did not envisage the institution playing a broader role in global conflict mediation.

The draft charter has drawn particular scrutiny for its governance provisions. Under its terms, member states would serve three-year terms but could secure permanent seats by paying a $1 billion contribution, a fee structure widely criticized for privileging wealthier states and undermining principles of equitable governance in international organizations.

The charter also grants the board's chair, Trump himself, broad authority over decision-making, including veto rights and control over membership decisions, raising alarm among European officials about concentrated leadership and lack of internal checks.

An internal document from the EU's diplomatic service reportedly expressed concern that the board's structure diverges from constitutional principles upheld by EU member states and that its expanding mandate strays from the Security Council's original authorization. France and Spain, among others, have declined participation, with officials stressing that any peace initiative must operate within the UN framework.

Some U.S. allies in the Middle East and beyond have taken a different tack. Countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, and others have signed the board's founding charter, though neither Palestinian nor Israeli representatives were present at the signing, complicating the board's claim to legitimacy in addressing Gaza's future. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated his country will join despite his earlier objections to the board's composition.

However, the board's supporters have done little to quell concerns among international observers, who question both its mandate and underlying intentions.

"This mechanism is essentially an expression of U.S. hegemony," Diao Daming, a professor at the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, told Xinhua.

"It violates the principles of equality and fairness that international mechanisms are meant to uphold and, from the outset, was not designed to resolve problems but to serve as a tool of coercive appropriation," he added.

The controversy has also revived broader concern over the risks facing the existing international framework. Experts say the board, driven by U.S. influence and a governance model diverging from UN norms, represents an attempt to create a parallel institution that could erode the United Nations' authority as the principal global forum for diplomacy and peacekeeping.

Gershon Baskin, a conflict negotiator and the Middle East Director for the International Communities Organization, a UK-based NGO, said the attempt to undermine the structure of interstate relations that has existed since the end of WWII is "very dangerous."