The creation of Donald Trump’s new “board of peace” has raised alarm bells among diplomats and observers, who see it as a concerning attempt by the former US president to consolidate global decision-making power under his control.
Flanked by a diverse group of representatives from 19 countries, including authoritarian leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Trump inaugurated the board in Davos, Switzerland, declaring that the “most powerful people in the world” can now “do pretty much anything we want to do.”
This broad mandate, coupled with Trump’s apparent plans to have the board potentially replace or undermine the role of the United Nations, has sparked fears that the initiative is an expansionist and interventionist move, rather than a genuine effort for peace.
The board’s charter, which has not been fully disclosed, reportedly gives Trump the power to appoint and remove members, raising questions about its independence and decision-making processes. Notably, key global players like the UK, China, the European Union, and Ukraine have either not committed to the board or outright rejected the invitation to join.
However, some countries, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and the UAE, have signed on, likely motivated by the prospect of gaining rare access and leverage with the former US president, who is seen as the only world leader capable of forcing Israel to abide by the terms of any truce for Gaza and Palestine.
Observers have also noted that nations like Argentina, which has faced Trump’s “Don-roe doctrine” emphasis on US dominance in the Western hemisphere, may have joined the board as a form of “insurance” against future exclusion and retaliation.
Overall, the creation of Trump’s “board of peace” is being viewed as the clearest sign yet of his expansionist and interventionist agenda, which appears to be driven by a real estate mogul’s mindset rather than a genuine commitment to global stability and cooperation. As diplomats and analysts continue to scrutinise the initiative, concerns remain about its potential to undermine the role of established international institutions and concentrate power in the hands of a single, unpredictable leader.
