At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Donald Trump officially launched his new initiative, the “Board of Peace,” emphasizing its potential to collaborate with the United Nations. However, skepticism remains among various international leaders regarding the board’s formation and its implications for the U.N.’s role in global governance. Trump’s administration has framed this new board as a means to tackle global conflicts, positing its operational scope as comparable to that of the U.N., but the formal attendance of only two EU representatives—Hungary and Bulgaria—at the launch highlighted the rifts in perception surrounding Trump’s ambitions.
During the signing ceremony, Trump expressed assertiveness about the board’s power and potential, stating, “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do, and we’ll do it in conjunction with the United Nations.” This statement suggests a desire to leverage the U.N.’s existing structures while pushing a distinct, potentially unilateral agenda.
This launch occurs against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s recent withdrawal from 66 international organizations, many of which are affiliated with the U.N., casting doubt on the seriousness of Trump’s claims about supporting international cooperation. Daniel Forti from the International Crisis Group noted this withdrawal exemplifies a vision of international engagement that aligns more closely with U.S. interests rather than a cooperative global framework.
Interest in joining the board has been varied, with some nations quickly accepting invitations and others, including Canada, Russia, and China, taking a more cautious approach. In reaction to resistance, Trump has conveyed frustration, notably threatening punitive tariffs on French wine after France, Norway, Sweden, and Slovenia declined invitations as the board takes shape.
Originally intended to oversee the peace process in the Gaza Strip, senior administration officials indicated broader aspirations for the board, emphasizing it as a platform for proactive peacebuilding. Secretary of State Marco Rubio labeled it “a board of action” rather than just a passive peace initiative. Alongside the launch, the administration shared encouraging news from Gaza, including the reopening of the Rafah crossing by local officials, which may facilitate humanitarian aid.
Countries interested in a permanent seat on the board are being told the membership would involve a $1 billion cost, framed as voluntary contributions rather than mandatory fees. Despite this, skepticism remains as evidenced by Canada’s refusal to pay for a seat unless humanitarian conditions improve in Gaza. In a recent social media post, Trump even rescinded Canada’s invitation following a strong address from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the forum, marking a notable clash in diplomatic rhetoric.
Aiming for significance in a tumultuous global climate, the Board of Peace’s charter seems to have a broader mission than its initial conception focused solely on Gaza. It is described as an organization intended to foster stability and governance in conflict-affected areas, though specifics about its operations remain vague and contentious.
Notably, invitations extended to both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have raised eyebrows, given the ongoing conflict between their nations. The complexities of their potential collaboration within such a framework reflect the challenges the board may face in achieving its ambitious goals. While Trump aims to redefine global engagement, the reception of this initiative and its potential effectiveness will largely depend on international willingness to participate and collaborate harmoniously with U.S. leadership.