The Board of Peace Is A Step Away From Failed International Institutions

The details are unclear, but Trump seems to be setting up an institution that could supplant the United Nations Security Council.

Earlier this month, I published an essay titled Eliminating Liberal International Asymmetries. I discussed how President Trump is trying to abolish asymmetries in international law that will necessarily favor progressive views. I wrote about the United Nations, in particular, which has proven to be a failed institution, in large part because it gives stature to all nations.

This much is well known. But less understood is how the United Nations, and other international bodies, have inverted the normal course of international law. In many contexts, a coalition of smaller nations may seek to shape the foreign policy of larger nations that they could not challenge in other contexts. To be sure, the United States and four other superpowers retain a veto on the United Nations Security Council. But in most other contexts, a majority group of minority nations can set the agenda and shape expectations about international authority. It is far more difficult for any nation, including the United States, to withdraw from the United Nations Charter than to withdraw from a bilateral treaty. As a result, great nations have to suffer complaints from weaker nations, all for the sake of faux equality. It has always been a fiction to treat countries with weak influence as having the same stature as countries with strong influence. The United Nations reminds me of a liberal little league: no one keeps score, the best players are benched so weaker players have the same number of at-bats, and all the teams receive the same participation trophy regardless of their record.

Recent developments provide some more data points for my analysis. It seems that Trump's proposed Board of Peace is not limited to the conflict in Gaza. Rather, Trump seems to be establishing something of on alternative to the United Nations. The United States would invite members to join, and they would have to play a $1 billion entrance fee. Only the largest, most-powerful nations will be able to participate.

The New York Times has some details, but much remains unclear:

President Trump's "Board of Peace" is billing itself as a new international peacekeeping body — and permanent membership won't come cheap.

Mr. Trump is inviting countries to join beyond a three-year term, if they're willing to cough up more than a billion dollars in cash within the board's first year, according to a draft of the board's charter reviewed by The New York Times.

And while the board was conceived as part of Mr. Trump's plan to oversee Gaza, there is no mention of Gaza in the charter. That omission added to speculation that the group may have a broader mandate to cover other conflicts and could even be aimed at creating a U.S.-dominated alternative to the United Nations Security Council. . . .

The board's charter was sent out with invitations to potential members over the weekend. A copy reviewed by The Times was verified by an official on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate diplomacy. News of the $1 billion buy-in was previously reported by Bloomberg.

On Friday, the White House announced the board's members would include Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law, and Ajay Banga, the head of the World Bank.

Several countries said they had received invitations to join, including Argentina, Canada, Egypt and Turkey. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also been invited, the Jordanian Foreign Ministry announced on Sunday. . . .

The charter appears to outline a much more ambitious role for the board than the one described in Mr. Trump's plan for Gaza, published in October 2025, as well as the subsequent Security Council resolution.

The board's mission, according to the charter, is to seek "to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict" and "to undertake peace-building functions in accordance with international law."

The preamble emphasizes the need for what it calls "a more nimble and effective international peace-building body" and laments that "too many approaches to peace-building foster perpetual dependency and institutionalize crisis rather than leading people beyond it."

According to the charter, the board is expected to meet for voting at least annually, and expenses are to be funded through voluntary contributions from member states or other sources. The charter does not elaborate on the peacekeeping efforts.

For nearly six decades, there has been something called a "peace process" in Israel. Can something that has failed for six decades still be called a process? Indeed, Palestinians are unique in that they can inherit refugee status. And UNRWA, the United Nations relief agency, was Hamas terrorists. There is perpetual dependency on these institutions, that are not actually equipped to end crises.

Will this Board of Peace supplant the United Nations Security Council? Who knows. But Trump, as usual, is trying to shatter paradigms in nearly every corner of the globe.

Update: The Times published a guest essay by the secretary general of the Council of Europe. It finishes with this choice:

International law is either universal or meaningless. Greenland will show which one we choose.

If international law is meaningless, that change did not happen overnight, or even with Trump's election. It has been a slow, gradual process that was visible for all to see, but those vested in its perpetuation maintained the fiction. I think international law will continue to exist, but not the form erected during the post World War II settlement. In the same way that modern conservatism no longer has much relation to the Goldwater-Reagan coalition (as Ross Douthat explained), international law will no longer have much relation to the United Nations and related institutions. Things are not fixed in stone. Trump, as I noted above, has proven a unique adeptness to finding all of the pre-exisiting cracks in these edifices, and smashing them.

Update: The Times of Israel published the text of the Charter:

CHARTER OF THE BOARD OF PEACE

PREAMBLE

Declaring that durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed;

Recognizing that lasting peace takes root when people are empowered to take ownership and responsibility over their future;

Affirming that only sustained, results-oriented partnership, grounded in shared burdens and commitments, can secure peace in places where it has for too long proven elusive;

Lamenting that too many approaches to peace-building foster perpetual dependency, and institutionalize crisis rather than leading people beyond it;

Emphasizing the need for a more nimble and effective international peace-building body; and

Resolving to assemble a coalition of willing States committed to practical cooperation and effective action,

Judgment guided and justice honored, the Parties hereby adopt the Charter for the Board of Peace.

Article 1: Mission

CHAPTER I-PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS

The Board of Peace is an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict. The Board of Peace shall undertake such peace-building functions in accordance with international law and as may be approved in accordance with this Charter, including the development and dissemination of best practices capable of being applied by all nations and communities seeking peace.

CHAPTER II

MEMBERSHIP

Article 2.1: Member States

Membership in the Board of Peace is limited to States invited to participate by the Chairman, and commences upon notification that the State has consented to be bound by this Charter, in accordance with Chapter XI.

Article 2.2: Member State Responsibilities

(a) Each Member State shall be represented on the Board of Peace by its Head of State or Government.

(b) Each Member State shall support and assist with Board of Peace operations consistent with their respective domestic legal authorities. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to give the Board of Peace jurisdiction within the territory of Member States, or require Member States to participate in a particular peace-building mission, without their consent.

(c) Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter's entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter's entry into force.

Article 2.3: Termination of Membership

Membership shall terminate upon the earlier of: (i) expiration of a three-year term, subject to Article 2.2(c) and renewal by the Chairman; (ii) withdrawal, consistent with Article 2.4; (iii) a removal decision by the Chairman, subject to a veto by a two-thirds majority of Member States: or (iv) dissolution of the Board of Peace pursuant to Chapter X. A Member State whose membership terminates shall also cease to be a Party to the Charter, but such State may be invited again to become a Member State, in accordance with Article 2.1.

Article 2.4: Withdrawal

Any Member State may withdraw from the Board of Peace with immediate effect by providing written notice to the Chairman.

CHAPTER III-GOVERNANCE

Article 3.1: The Board of Peace

(a) The Board of Peace consists of its Member States.

(b) The Board of Peace shall vote on all proposals on its agenda, including with respect to the annual budgets, the establishment of subsidiary entities, the appointment of senior executive officers, and major policy determinations, such as the approval of international agreements and the pursuit of new peace-building initiatives.

(c) The Board of Peace shall convene voting meetings at least annually and at such additional times and locations as the Chairman deems appropriate. The agenda at such meetings shall be set by the Executive Board, subject to notice and comment by Member States and approval by the Chairman.

(d) Each Member State shall have one vote on the Board of Peace.

(e) Decisions shall be made by a majority of the Member States present and voting, subject to the approval of the Chairman, who may also cast a vote in his capacity as Chairman in the event of a tie.

(f) The Board of Peace shall also hold regular non-voting meetings with its Executive Board at which Member States may submit recommendations and guidance with respect to the Executive Board's activities, and at which the Executive Board shall report to the Board of Peace on the Executive Board's operations and decisions. Such meetings shall be convened on at least a quarterly basis, with the time and place of said meetings determined by the Chief Executive of the Executive Board.

(g) Member States may elect to be represented by an alternate high-ranking official at all meetings, subject to approval by the Chairman.

(h) The Chairman may issue invitations to relevant regional economic integration organizations to participate in the proceedings of the Board of Peace under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate.

Article 3.2: Chairman

(a) Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace, and he shall separately serve as inaugural representative of the United States of America, subject only to the provisions of Chapter III.

(b) The Chairman shall have exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities as necessary or appropriate to fulfill the Board of Peace's mission.

Article 3.3: Succession and Replacement

The Chairman shall at all times designate a successor for the role of Chairman. Replacement of the Chairman may occur only following voluntary resignation or as a result of incapacity, as determined by a unanimous vote of the Executive Board, at which time the Chairman's designated successor shall immediately assume the position of the Chairman and all associated duties and authorities of the Chairman.

Article 3.4: Subcommittees

The Chairman may establish subcommittees as necessary or appropriate and shall set the mandate, structure, and governance rules for each such subcommittee.

CHAPTER IV-EXECUTIVE BOARD

Article 4.1: Executive Board Composition and Representation

(a) The Executive Board shall be selected by the Chairman and consist of leaders of global stature.

(b) Members of the Executive Board shall serve two-year terms, subject to removal by the Chairman and renewable at his discretion.

(c) The Executive Board shall be led by a Chief Executive nominated by the Chairman and confirmed by a majority vote of the Executive Board.

(d) The Chief Executive shall convene the Executive Board every two weeks for the first three months following its establishment and on a monthly basis thereafter, with additional meetings convened as the Chief Executive deems appropriate.

(e) Decisions of the Executive Board shall be made by a majority of its members present and voting, including the Chief Executive. Such decisions shall go into effect immediately, subject to veto by the Chairman at any time thereafter.

(f) The Executive Board shall determine its own rules of procedure.

Article 4.2: Executive Board Mandate

The Executive Board shall:

(a) Exercise powers necessary and appropriate to implement the Board of Peace's mission, consistent with this Charter;

(b) Report to the Board of Peace on its activities and decisions on a quarterly basis, consistent with Article 3.1(f), and at additional times as the Chairman may determine.

Article 5.1: Expenses

CHAPTER V-FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Funding for the expenses of the Board of Peace shall be through voluntary funding from Member States, other States, organizations, or other sources.

Article 5.2: Accounts

The Board of Peace may authorize the establishment of accounts as necessary to carry out its mission. The Executive Board shall authorize the institution of controls and oversight mechanisms with respect to budgets, financial accounts, and disbursements, as necessary or appropriate to ensure their integrity.

CHAPTER VI LEGAL STATUS

Article 6

(a) The Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities possess international legal personality. They shall have such legal capacity as may be necessary to the pursuit of their mission (including, but not limited to, the capacity to enter into contracts, acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property, institute legal proceedings, open bank accounts, receive and disburse private and public funds, and employ staff).

(b) The Board of Peace shall ensure the provision of such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of the functions of the Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities and personnel, to be established in agreements with the States in which the Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities operate or through such other measures as may be taken by those States consistent with their domestic legal requirements. The Board may delegate authority to negotiate and conclude such agreements or arrangements to designated officials within the Board of Peace and/or its subsidiary entities.

Article 7

CHAPTER VII-INTERPRETATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Internal disputes between and among Board of Peace Members, entities, and personnel with respect to matters related to the Board of Peace should be resolved through amicable collaboration, consistent with the organizational authorities established by the Charter, and for such purposes, the Chairman is the final authority regarding the meaning, interpretation, and application of this Charter.

CHAPTER VIII-CHARTER AMENDMENTS

Article 8

Amendments to the Charter may be proposed by the Executive Board or at least one-third of the Member States of the Board of Peace acting together. Proposed amendments shall be circulated to all Member States at least thirty (30) days before being voted on. Such amendments shall be adopted upon approval by a two-thirds majority of the Board of Peace and confirmation by the Chairman. Amendments to Chapters II, III, IV, V, VIII, and X require unanimous approval of the Board of Peace and confirmation by the Chairman. Upon satisfaction of the relevant requirements, amendments shall enter into force on such date as specified in the amendment resolution or immediately if no date is specified.

Article 9

CHAPTER IX-RESOLUTIONS OR OTHER DIRECTIVES

The Chairman, acting on behalf of the Board of Peace, is authorized to adopt resolutions or other directives, consistent with this Charter, to implement the Board of Peace's mission.

CHAPTER X-DURATION, DISSOLUTION AND TRANSITION

Article 10.1: Duration

The Board of Peace continues until dissolved in accordance with this Chapter, at which time this Charter will also terminate.

Article 10.2: Conditions for Dissolution

The Board of Peace shall dissolve at such time as the Chairman considers necessary or appropriate, or at the end of every odd-numbered calendar year, unless renewed by the Chairman no later than November 21 of such odd-numbered calendar year. The Executive Board shall provide for the rules and procedures with respect to the settling of all assets, liabilities, and obligations upon dissolution.

CHAPTER XI-ENTRY INTO FORCE

Article 11.1: Entry into Force and Provisional Application

(a) This Charter shall enter into force upon expression of consent to be bound by three States. (b) States required to ratify, accept, or approve this Charter through domestic procedures agree to provisionally apply the terms of this Charter, unless such States have informed the Chairman at the time of their signature that they are unable to do so. Such States that do not provisionally apply this Charter may participate as Non-Voting Members in Board of Peace proceedings pending ratification, acceptance, or approval of the Charter consistent with their domestic legal requirements, subject to approval by the Chairman.

Article 11.2: Depositary

The original text of this Charter, and any amendment thereto shall be deposited with the United States of America, which is hereby designated as the Depositary of this Charter. The Depositary shall promptly provide a certified copy of the original text of this Charter, and any amendment or additional protocols thereto, to all signatories to this Charter.

CHAPTER XII RESERVATIONS

Article 12

No reservations may be made to this Charter.

CHAPTER XIII-GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 13.1: Official Language

The official language of the Board of Peace shall be English

Article 13.2: Headquarters

The Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities may, in accordance with the Charter, establish a headquarters and field offices. The Board of Peace will negotiate a headquarters agreement and agreements governing field offices with the host State or States, as necessary.

Article 13.3: Seal

The Board of Peace will have an official seal, which shall be approved by the Chairman.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed this Charter.

Comments

[Mark N.]

> To be sure, the United States and four other superpowers retain a veto on the United Nations Security Council. But in most other contexts, a majority group of minority nations can set the agenda and shape expectations about international authority.

Doesn't this parenthetically admit away the entire argument? The Security Council is the only body in the UN that has anything close to the ability to enforce its resolutions. The "other contexts" are toothless.

[Ken Arromdee]

I would not say that the anti-Israel propaganda from the UN is toothless, even if the UN can't tell countries to invade Israel. It's had enormous effects.

[bernard11]

Beyond ludicrous.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I agree the UN is a joke, but not because little nations get a seat at the table with the big nations instead of stuck at the kiddie table. That's ludicrous. Little nations' littleness is not from being children but from being midgets, to use a human analogy. They deserve as much say as all nations, just as all adults deserve a say, regardless of height.

What's wrong with the UN?

* The security council permanent members have the sole vetoes. France and the UK are not even the kind of super powers Josh claims are the only reasonable adult nations. What about Germany and Japan? Limiting vetoes to the WW II victors is beyond stupid.

* The UN has branched out well beyond its original remit. Stop creating all these do-gooder feel-good agencies which do nothing but soak up rich countries (mainly the US) money and spread it to terrorists and Swiss bank accounts. The IPCC issues idiot statements about boiling oceans and hosts annual meetings for tens of thousands of delegates, showing how seriously they believe in reducing emissions, looking for ways to get better handouts and hookers paid for by the handouts.

* Then there's the bozos the UN puts in charge of these agencies. Iran in charge of women's rights?

* The Security Council is a joke. The faux-democratic Assembly is a joke.

The only thing the UN should be doing is providing ways for countries to talk to each other, and that doesn't require the UN at all.

Their peace-keeping missions could be good, if they weren't hobbled by Security Council vetoes. They should have had peace-keeping missions between Russia and Ukraine long ago, but Russia would have vetoed it so no one even considered it.

The UN serves no unique purpose.

[Darwinnie]

I don’t have much to argue with your points. I’m wondering what purpose this new body would actually serve that the UN can’t. It seems more like a body to divvy up spoils among Trump allies, specifically the private interests in those countries.

[David Nieporent]

Their peace-keeping missions could be good, if they weren't hobbled by Security Council vetoes. They should have had peace-keeping missions between Russia and Ukraine long ago, but Russia would have vetoed it so no one even considered it.

It is not security council vetoes that are the problem. It's that the UN has no way to enforce anything. (And I would not want the UN to have its own independent force.) Suppose there were no such thing as a Security Council veto, so Russia couldn't block a peacekeeping mission. Would that have helped? No. Peacekeeping missions require an existing peace to keep. What Russia-Ukraine needs is a peacemaking mission: the ability to impose peace. Even if the composition of the Security Council were such that it would vote for such a proposal — and that in itself is questionable — where would such a peace-imposing ability come from? How many troops would be needed to force Russia to stand down? What countries would be willing to send troops, under someone else's control, to engage in actual combat? What countries would be able to do so?

[bloocow2]

I suppose "smashing paradigms" is one way to describe a peace club that you can only join with a billion dollars.

[bloocow2]

Oh, and established by a government that recently proposed taking Greenland by force.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Yes, his hypocrisy shows again. On the other hand, at least countries which have a billion dollars at stake have some skin in the game and might act a little more responsibly, as compared to Iran being head of a human rights agency.

[Sarcastr0]

Putin says he was invited, too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/19/kremlin-says-putin-invited-join-trump-gaza-board-of-peace

If that's right, then 'act a little more responsibly' is another laugh.

Maybe stop trying to clean up after Trump. The man is never done with shitting things up.

[Darwinnie]

Yes, it’s a body of Trump allies who would pay him tribute and work together for spoils. See Putin.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Shitting things up, like you? If you think I'm trying to clean up after Trump, you're even dumber and more illiterate than I thought.

[Sarcastr0]

Your comment about this utterly pants-on-head stupid idea having a silver lining sure acts like cleaning up for Trump's shittery.

And comes in already wrong, since Trump already pre-shitted your 'act more responsibly' attempt by inviting Russia.

[Michael Molovinsky]

Mr. Blackman, You have much more faith in Trump as an architect of anything than I do, or apparently Netanyahu. Nothing is possible without Israel's cooperation, (and maybe with), but the PM opposes Turkey and Qatar involvement. Strange to get this far, without those two would be kings (BiBi and Donald) not having resolved the participation issue.

[Darwinnie]

Blackman is just a hack who can only praise whatever MAGA does.

[Martinned]

Arsonists' fire department, that's definitely one way to combat fires...

[Sarcastr0]

It’s like 100 years too late to go about establishing tributaries.

Smashing paradigms back to the age of empires where everyone was either exploited or afraid someone would take their holdings.

We fought and died to make sure that age was dead and buried. We put away an evil empire.

Luckily, no one is going to go for this. Except Blackman, who could have wrote nothing but chose to write nothing of substance and also praise the President.

[santamonica811]

I think this falls into the category of "Who gives a crap?"

Any country thinking about joining will do so knowing that it will last until a day after Trump's term ends and a new President takes office. Any country stupid enough to join, while knowing this, is too stupid to be entrusted with that billion dollars. Give that money to Trump. Can can spend it on McDonald's, Cokes, and more porn stars. Fine with me.

[benji]

Yes, why would anyone pay the fee? There's not even any idea of what they could possibly get from it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The UN's basic problem is that its structure emphasized inclusiveness too much. It treats genocidal police states as equivalent to peaceful democracies, so you end up with institutions that in a crunch can't do anything about genocides.

It's like including the Crips and the Bloods in your neighborhood watch, and being surprised you can't do anything effective about gang wars.

[Sarcastr0]

emphasized inclusiveness too much
Except for the actual policymaking body, sure.

But wait:
"On 6 November 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, a non-binding resolution condemning South African apartheid policies, establishing the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid and calling for imposing economic and other sanctions on South Africa. On 7 August 1963 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 181, calling for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa and that very year the Special Committee Against Apartheid would encourage and oversee plans of action against the country."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_apartheid

You once again say what you feel, not what history shows.

[MaddogEngineer]

Sure, there is always a particular exception. Now do Israel. Much more illuminating about democracies and the rest.

One need look no farther than the deafening silence over what is going on in Iran right now. That's even before we even consider the "legitimacy" of the Iranian regime versus the state of Israel.

[bobsnort]

I think you meant to say "The Board of Peace Is A Step Away From BEING A Failed International Institution"

[Will Nonya]

This logic seems to suggest that weaker states in something like a union of states under a federation model should not be treated as equals.

[Reason4thinking]

Mr Blackman is clearly revealing a philosophy here that appears at odds with his otherwise core legal doctrine. It smacks of an authoritarian/elitist mind set.

To take Will Nonyas analogy a little further, imagine a world governed by US rules of federalism. The UN can be considered the Federal government. Each country then is a state. Countries are equal, but have independent governance and the ability to manage their own affairs within reason. Now consider the world voted DJT as the President of the UN...

The UN is structured to prevent that eventuality. But the cost is what you have now. The overall commentary is the ineffectual character of the UN, the lack of an enforcement power. But the enforcement has to come from individual members acting responsibly, and based on overall consensus. But consensus is a tricky thing. The IPCC is particularly vilified. As a scientific and accounting exercise it has worked well. But implementation was flawed starting with its designation of developed versus developing nations. The intent has always been to shift cost burden to developed countries. China, the worlds largest producer of pollution and 2nd largest economy, is able to defer responsibility as they jealously guard their designation as a developing country. And of course the US is either in alignment or not as the political winds blow. So it goes.

James Madison et al were keen observers of human nature. They knew all too clearly how much character matters and built guardrails into the Constitution to mitigate such issues. But our governmental structure is under attack by bad character of the elected or selected to serve. And we see now just how much that matters.

[ReaderY]

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!

We have a live one here!

Somebody has crawled out from under his rock and it’s starting to dawn on him what’s going on!

[ReaderY]

It’s a brilliant idea. Ordinary investors in the hotel and resort chain would expect something in return. Why not try to sell it as international development and get the capital for free?

The board can meet a few times and yap and spiel a bit to make it look good. The Trump Organization can get its funding. And Trump can issue glowing reports and yap on a bit at the meetings about how well the Board’s money is being spent on helping locals get jobs as construction workers, cooks, housekeepers, etc. After a couple of such meetings, the Board and the money can simply quietly disappear and Mr. Trump can get a new yacht.

[MaddogEngineer]

I am still amazed people don't entirely understand why the League of Nations failed, and why the United Nations can't possibly achieve the kinds of peace people desire. It's both a fantasy belief in "word government" and a misunderstanding about exactly what its stepmother, international law, actually is and is not.

Related, it's like believing that international agreements about nuclear non-proliferation might one day lead to the abolition of all nuclear weapons. Yeah, no. The weapons are an indicator of a metaphysical truth, the shadow that truth casts being the UN Security Council. Much like the League of Nations, the Security Council matters only to the extent its permanent members choose it should, or have the independent will to do things.

[Randal]

I think international law will continue to exist, but not the form erected during the post World War II settlement.

Which, if true, is too bad, considering that the United States was by far the biggest beneficiary of said settlement.

When people stop buying US debt, we're fucked.

[tuphat]

"Only the largest, most-powerful nations will be able to participate." I'm pretty sure North Korea could easily come up with $1b, does that mean they are among largest and most powerful?