US President Donald Trump has suggested that his “Board of Peace” for Gaza could, over time, replace the UN – a remark that has increased debate over whether Washington will try an alternative to the post-Second World War international order.
Asked on Tuesday whether he could see the new body, which is charged with overseeing the Gaza ceasefire and reconstruction, eventually supplanting the UN, Mr Trump replied: “It might.”
He told a White House press conference that the UN had repeatedly failed to fulfil its mission.
“The UN just hasn’t been very helpful. I’m a big fan of the UN but it has never lived up to its potential,” Mr Trump said, adding that the institution “should have settled every one of the wars that I settled".
Originally conceived as a small group of world leaders, the Board of Peace has since grown into a more expansive and more ambiguous concept. Mr Trump has hinted that it could serve as a mediator for conflicts beyond Gaza, a shift that analysts say underscores his preference for informal, leader-driven diplomacy anchored in US power rather than a multilateral process.
That ambition has raised alarm among some European leaders. The STA news agency quoted Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob as saying that the board’s mandate appeared to be excessively broad and could undermine an international system grounded in the UN Charter.
Farhan Haq, spokesman for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, said it is “too early” to tell what the Board of Peace will look like.
“One thing we are aware of is, of course, that the Security Council has endorsed the Board of Peace strictly for the work on Gaza, and, of course, we continue to abide by that resolution. What happens in the future, we'll have to see,” he told reporters on Wednesday.
Former US State Department Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller told The National that Mr Trump’s initiative reflects a familiar pattern rather than an institutional rival.
“This is a break with the international order to the extent Donald Trump and most everything he does is completely unconventional,” said Mr Miller.
Still, he added, “I don’t see this as a threat to the UN … This board is designed to demonstrate political and diplomatic power. That's how I think he sees it.”
Mr Miller described the board as a political and diplomatic companion to Mr Trump’s emphasis on American power, pointing to pressure tactics on issues ranging from Venezuela to Greenland.
“I think this is the diplomatic political effort to create an American, US-dominated organisation,” he said.
Participation, Mr Miller said, appeared to be driven less by shared principles than by political alignment.
“Signing up for this so far seems to be done by people who are desperate for Trump's affection and approval, or who already stand in his corner like [Hungary's Prime Minister] Viktor Orban,” he said.
“There are no democratic or political constraints for a country to sign up to this. Like joining the UN there would have to be legal and political obstacles overcome, and even if they could be overcome, what are you signing up for? There's no mandate.”
Yet analysts caution that the idea cannot be dismissed entirely.
Human Rights Watch’s UN director Lou Charbonneau said the Board of Peace was originally intended to oversee the administration of Gaza, but noted that its "charter doesn’t even mention Gaza, suggesting that Trump’s ambitions for this body have expanded enormously since first conceived".
Maya Ungar, UN analyst at the International Crisis Group, told The National that if the board does take off and ends up usurping the role of the UN Security Council, it would mark a significant rupture in postwar global governance.
The Board of Peace, she added, could greatly disrupt existing international structures, but many states are hesitant to buy into a process that disadvantages them and their values.
“The Board of Peace is set up in a way that gives the United States a unilateral veto, which would be against the national interests of most other world powers," Ms Ungar said.
