Trump Proposes "Peace Board" as Alternative to the UN: What Are the Implications?

Just before his participation in the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Donald Trump sparked a diplomatic uproar by proposing that a "Peace Board" initiated by the White House "could take the place" of the United Nations.

"The UN hasn't been very helpful. I'm a big fan of its potential, but it has never lived up to it," Trump told reporters. He further added, "The UN should have resolved all the wars that I have. I never went to them, nor did I think of going."

The statement heightened concerns among European diplomats, former U.S. officials, and senior UN representatives, who were already wary of the new entity which, as revealed, will be indefinitely chaired by Trump himself.

A Personalistic Board: Trump as Lifetime Chair

Last Friday, the White House announced the creation of a "Founding Executive Board," led by Trump and comprising close allies such as his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and special envoy Steve Witkoff.

According to a draft of the founding charter obtained by CNN, Trump will hold the presidency without a time limit. He can only be removed "by voluntary resignation or as a result of incapacity, as determined by a unanimous vote of the Executive Board." This means that even a change in administration would not automatically displace him from the position.

A U.S. official explained that a future president could appoint another U.S. representative to the Board, but Trump would retain his seat if he so wished.

$1 Billion for a Permanent Seat

The Board's structure has also stirred controversy due to its funding model. Nations wanting a permanent seat will need to contribute $1 billion. Although the White House insists this is not an "entry fee," several governments have expressed concern about what appears to be diplomacy limited to economically capable countries.

"We'd like to join, but we must study it because it requires a financial commitment that is quite high for us," stated the ambassador of one invited country.

Another diplomat compared the mechanism to Mar-a-Lago, saying, "I can't imagine anyone with a democratic process joining and submitting to Trump's veto, much less paying $1 billion for a three-year membership."

A U.S. official asserted that the funds would be used for Gaza's reconstruction. However, CNN confirmed that no concrete plans or agreements with contractors exist for this goal.

A Peace Without Gaza: Omission of the Palestinian Territory

Although Trump has marketed the Board as a body to oversee Gaza's reconstruction, the draft charter does not mention the Palestinian enclave. Instead, it defines the Board as an "international organization aimed at promoting stability, restoring reliable governance, and ensuring lasting peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict."

This nuance has alarmed diplomats who see the initiative as a tool for global intervention, detached from traditional multilateralism. "When you read the charter, it doesn't apply only to Gaza," said Pascal Confavreux, spokesperson for France's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"And it raises significant concerns about its compatibility with the UN Charter," he added.

Inviting Russia and China: More Concerns

Another concerning signal is the list of invited countries, including Russia, China, and Belarus. The potential presence of Russia, involved in the Ukraine invasion, has been heavily criticized. "Putin would undoubtedly use Russia's membership in the 'Peace Board' to undermine the UN and further divide U.S. alliances," warned Robert Wood, former U.S. deputy ambassador to the UN.

From London, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Yvette Cooper stated bluntly, "Putin is not a man of peace and doesn't belong in any organization with 'peace' in its name."

Europe's Skepticism

While the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain confirmed their participation, many European countries have distanced themselves from the initiative. France declined to join, and Ireland expressed reservations, stating it would carefully consider the invitation.

"The UN has a unique mandate to maintain international peace and security and the legitimacy to bring nations together to find common solutions to shared challenges," said Helen McEntee, Ireland's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

UN's Stance

From New York, the UN's response was swift. Tom Fletcher, the UN's humanitarian chief, declared that Trump's Board "will not replace" the multilateral organization. Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator, was even more blunt: "Everything is tied to a galaxy far, far away, not to realities here on planet Earth."

"Conflicts aren't resolved by external organizations but by mediators working with both sides," he added. "How can you replace an organization that has existed since 1946, with a permanent Security Council and a proven track record of humanitarian and diplomatic action? You can't rival this organization."

Trump's push for a parallel "Peace Board" presents itself as the biggest challenge to the global architecture since his return to the presidency. With a combination of personalistic leadership, economic exclusivity, and ambiguous global mandate, the project promises more division than stability in the short term. It remains to be seen how many countries will formally join this week during the signing ceremony in Davos. But the political message is clear: Trump doesn't want to reform the UN; he wants to replace it. And the struggle has just begun.