US President Donald Trump’s newly created Board of Peace has been dominating headlines all around the world since its signing ceremony on the sidelines of the 56th World Economic Forum last week in Davos. Nevertheless, confusion amongst commentators surrounds developments, in particular with regards to how today’s Board of Peace compares to what the UN itself had initially ticked off as a laudable effort last November; in other words, has President Trump single-handedly changed its agreed upon agenda?
In September, the US administration presented a 20-step plan to the UN for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, including setting up a Board of Peace in a second step. In November, the UN Security Council supported the idea and thereby lent it an air of respectability and legitimacy. But as it quickly emerged, President Trump had something much bigger in mind: prepare a Charter draft aiming at building an international organisation, much wider goals than simply facilitating a ceasefire and rebuilding Gaza. These wider goals feature promoting global stability, peace and governance in any area or region suffering from, or being under serious risk of suffering from conflicts.
Did President Trump outfox the entire UN structure by himself?
Davos saw 19 governments agreeing to sign up, with a total of just over 60 potentially targeted by Trump. Two more issues are of relevance: first, both Türkiye and Azerbaijan participate in the Board of Peace; second, we witnessed a notable absence of most European countries with Hungary being one such laudable exception.
The actual Board of Peace will be complemented by a Board of Peace Executive Board composed of eight members, including former UK Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair and the US secretary of state; last but not least and as it stands today there will also be a Gaza Executive Board comprised of 11 members, including Türkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.
United Nations: Really obsolete?
What could Trump really have had in mind – rebuilding Gaza of course but why his seemingly ‘global’ ambition? And: is he right to challenge the UN as being ineffective, a topic he talks about extensively.
Onto the former issue: Trump’s domestic Make America Great Again (MAGA) strategy might just as well transform itself into a kind of ‘MWGA’ or, Make (the) World Great Again. It is a sensational change in tactics as during his election campaign other problems mattered more, think the economy, consider migration. Over time Trump discovered the benefits of promoting the USA once again as a global player. It could just as well always have been part of his political thinking – first clear up issues at home, then promote the nation on a global scale abroad. We must recall that during his election campaign one key point was to address the concern amongst the electorate in a sense of where has America’s national purpose gone?
Now onto Trump’s latter agenda item: the president was and is very outspoken when it comes to condemning the UN as ineffective. One would not be surprised if he actually plans to abolish it completely.
United Nations reform including its Security Council is long overdue – but would it not be better to reform it from the inside as Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested in 2021 saying A Fairer World is Possible, or is perhaps US President Donald Trump right to declare we ‘might’ replace it, his Board of Peace as springboard?
Security Council veto power versus Board of Peace veto power most naturally there are many critical voices, part and parcel of democracy. Are they justified or originate amongst the usual suspects hailing from the so-called liberal establishment across Europe, who profess to dislike whatever Donald Trump envisages without any fair distinctions anyways? We remember the election campaign when exactly those self-styled liberals discredited anything and everything the Trump camp put forward.
No change then and back to Davos and a few examples: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer – ‘concerned’. The Guardian newspaper: ‘imperial court’. Outright refusal by France and Sweden and many others. British Foreign Secretary refusing to sign as Russian President Vladimir Putin could at one point in the near future join, too.
One criticism makes sense however: if it holds forth and Donald Trump has a mandate for life including the one and only veto power right in the Board of Peace, is a one man veto power better than the current five (plus 10) in the UN Security Council? So: talking UN Security Council: would his Board of Peace be more effective with Trump the only dominating figure at the helm of what he refers to as a new international organisation?
Three further question marks
First, should Trump’s Board of Peace and linked bodies really turn themselves into a viable success story model is there a risk of new fiefdoms and copy-cats, overly regionalisation and thus fragmenting of an already volatile, divided world? Or could his Board(s) do the opposite, reunite North South, East West?
Second, is there a danger that lasting peace for Gaza remains elusive and each and every further conflict or potential conflict anywhere in the world overtakes Palestine as major initial focus?
And third, due to the fact that the Republic of Türkiye and the Republic of Azerbaijan both aim at playing a significant role in Trump’s endeavours we can state that a new global world order is perhaps indeed in the making. Türkiye’s 360 degrees pro-active foreign policies and Azerbaijan’s ever increasing mediator role in the Southern Caucasus and as energy producer and exporter underline this assumption.
Does Trump simply play to his domestic gallery so to speak, or is his Board of Peace – undertaking for real and for the benefit of not just America but the whole world? Then the future of the UN might one day be on the negotiating table as well. However – not for the immediate time being and for sure not as long as Russia refuses to fully participate in Trump’s Board(s).
_____________________________________
The writer is the Director of Economyfirst Limited London
Courtesy: Anadolu Ajansı
