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 ended 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-exisitng cracks in these edifices, and smashing them.

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.