Donald Trump has once again shaken up the global geopolitical board with the creation of the ‘Peace Board’, an organization born with the ambition to redesign the international order. What began as a committee for the reconstruction of Gaza has transformed into a global entity with ambitions to replace the United Nations, under the indefinite presidency of the American magnate himself.
The announcement, made within the framework of the World Economic Forum in Davos, has generated a mix of surprising endorsements and outright rejections from Western democracies.
An Organization With Trump as Lifelong Leader
The structure of this new organization breaks with any previous diplomatic framework. According to the draft charter, Donald Trump will hold the presidency indefinitely, which would allow him to maintain control of the organization even after leaving the White House. Under his command sits a ‘Founding Executive Board’ composed of figures of his closest confidants such as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and, in an unexpected turn, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The Board’s mission has rapidly expanded: it is no longer limited to overseeing demilitarization and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, but seeks to intervene in areas affected by conflicts around the world. For many international analysts, this move represents Trump’s most serious attempt yet to dismantle traditional multilateralism and replace it with a governance model based on personalism and economic power.
The Price of Peace: 1 Billion per Seat
One of the most controversial and singular aspects of the ‘Peace Board’ is its funding model. Trump has established that countries wishing a permanent seat must pay 1 billion dollars. Although the U.S. administration maintains that these funds will be used for the reconstruction of devastated territories, the measure has been harshly criticized as a ‘pay-for-influence’ system prone to large-scale corruption.
This entry fee has generated unprecedented diplomatic situations. Vladimir Putin, for example, has suggested using frozen Russian assets in the United States to fund his membership. The fact that rival powers are invited to join a peace organization by paying astronomical sums has raised alarms about the true nature of the organization: a forum for conflict resolution or an exclusive club for oil-rich states and autocracies?
A Guest List That Alarms the West
The composition of the Board is a mosaic of strategic allies and controversial figures. Among the countries that have already accepted the invitation are regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Egypt. However, the inclusion of leaders such as Alexander Lukashenko, often dubbed ‘the last dictator in Europe’, and the possible entry of Russia and China, has triggered a deep fracture with Washington’s traditional allies.
Benjamin Netanyahu has also joined the project, despite frictions over the presence of Qatari and Turkish officials on the executive committee. In Latin America, countries such as Argentina and Paraguay have said ‘yes’ to Trump, aligning with his new worldview. This heterogeneous alliance of Gulf monarchies, post-Soviet republics, and governments aligned with Trumpism seeks to present itself as a pragmatic alternative to the ‘inefficiency’ of traditional bodies.
The ‘No’ Block: Europe’s Resistance
In the face of the Gulf states’ enthusiasm, most European capitals have reacted with skepticism or outright rejection. France, Norway and Italy have declined to join, arguing that the Peace Board could undermine the legitimacy of the UN. Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni even argued that joining could raise serious constitutional issues, while France openly questions the lack of transparency in the body’s operations.
The most symbolic rejection has come from Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky has been blunt in saying that it is impossible to sit on the same council as Russia, its aggressor, and Belarus, its main ally. For leaders who defend a ‘rules-based order’, Trump’s proposal is not a tool for stability, but a threat that seeks to fragment the international system and replace international law with transactional agreements among strong leaders.
The End of the United Nations?
The question hanging over all chancelleries is whether the ‘Peace Board’ can truly eclipse or replace the UN. Trump has not hidden his disdain for the 80-year-old organization, which he has called a failed institution. By not mentioning the UN in its statutes and presenting itself as the new axis of global stability, the Board positions itself as a direct competitor for international legitimacy.
From the UN, the response has been firm. Tom Fletcher, the emergency aid coordinator, has asserted that the United Nations is not going anywhere. However, the fact that 35 countries participate in the signing ceremony in Davos indicates that there exists a significant group of nations willing to explore a post-UN world led by Trump. The success or failure of this experiment will determine whether the 21st century remains under collective rules or under the baton of a board of leaders presiding from Mar-a-Lago.
