The Board of Peace, proposed under the leadership of President Donald Trump, has been envisioned as a committee aimed at overseeing the reconstruction of Gaza, but its scope now appears to extend significantly beyond that. Critics of the initiative are expressing concerns that the board could potentially undermine the United Nations’ authority in matters of international peace and reconstruction.
According to a draft charter, the Board of Peace is tasked with “securing enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict,” indicating a broader mandate than just the reconstruction of Gaza. This has raised questions about the board’s intentions and the role it may play in global peace efforts.
Of particular note is the provision that would allow Trump to serve as the board’s chairman for life, unless he chooses to resign. This arrangement has sparked debate over the implications it may have for future U.S. administrations, with concerns mounting about the concentration of power in one individual. A U.S. official acknowledged that while Trump can hold the position indefinitely, a future president could appoint a new representative for the U.S. on the Board of Peace.
The charter also outlines a membership structure in which countries can attain three-year membership terms. However, nations that contribute more than $1 billion in cash during the first year would be granted permanent membership. It was emphasized by U.S. officials that contributions will be voluntary and will not serve as a mandatory entry fee. This distinction aims to alleviate concerns surrounding financial obligations for potential member states.
The Board of Peace is committed to ensuring rigorous financial oversight and control over any contributions received. Funds are to be held in approved accounts at reputable banks and will undergo strict scrutiny, including multi-signatory approval processes and annual independent audits.
Recently, several countries, including Argentina, Canada, Australia, Egypt, and Israel, among others, have been invited to join the board. Nonetheless, many leaders appear hesitant to publicly endorse the initiative, signaling a cautious approach moving forward.
As the U.S. government prepares to announce the official list of board members, there remains a sense of cautious optimism surrounding the potential of the Board of Peace to facilitate effective international cooperation and contribute to lasting peace solutions.