Multiple countries have declined to join Donald Trump’s new Board of Peace, but others are reportedly still considering it. The board, with its billion-dollar price tag for admission to permanent membership, exemplifies Trump’s “neo-royalist” view that the world should be controlled by a small group of elites. The U.N. Security Council, the body with primary responsibility for international peace and security, endorsed the idea of creating a transitional administration to coordinate funding for the redevelopment of Gaza. But the board’s charter makes no mention of Gaza. Rather, it seems designed to give Trump control over reconstruction efforts worldwide, without any external accountability mechanisms.
Other countries should refuse to give this effort legitimacy, let alone funds.
The board’s charter rightly notes that “lasting peace takes root when people are empowered to take ownership and responsibility over their future,” and it states that the board will undertake peace-building functions “in accordance with international law.” But the board’s authoritarian membership (of the 19 countries present at the signing ceremony, 16 are rated “not free” or only “partly free” by Freedom House, a nonpartisan democracy watchdog) and its concentration of control give little hope that it will live up to these commitments. The powers given to Trump as chairman of the board essentially mean that member dues will form a slush fund for his apparent desire to create a worldwide real estate empire, with zero representation for the people affected by his decisions.
Trump seeks to portray himself as a peacemaker, not least reflected in his insistence that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet he seems focused above all on self-enrichment. The Board of Peace should also be seen through this lens. By squashing dissent domestically and bullying allies internationally, Trump seeks to create a reality in which nobody can say no to him. It’s a classic mobster tactic of making offers people can’t refuse. The dilemma for other countries is whether to lie low and hope that basic decency and common sense will prevail, or to build new multilateral frameworks for cooperation based on common values and interests, as recently suggested by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
To be sure, countries rightly concerned about their own security and territorial integrity might be tempted not to antagonize Trump. But if countries act collectively, Trump’s divide-and-conquer tactics are less likely to succeed. As it stands, the board seems designed primarily to give Trump personal control over resources in exchange for undisclosed benefits to members. Russian President Vladimir Putin might even use the board to try and regain access to Russian assets that were frozen in response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine—a manifest and ongoing violation of the U.N. Charter.
Eighty years ago, after the cataclysm of the Second World War, the drafters of the U.N. Charter articulated four important principles for the organization: (1) To maintain international peace and security; (2) To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; (3) To promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and (4) To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these common ends. These goals remain essential and should be reaffirmed.
The U.N. Charter system is imperfect. But the solution is not to join or endorse a board that resembles a club of oligarchs. Rather, countries should resist the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of leaders who are not accountable to those whose lives they affect. They should recommit to the values of the U.N. Charter and its guiding principles. And they should reject Trump’s latest effort to become a de facto emperor, not only for the United States but for the entire world.