**Davos, Switzerland** – In a move that has underscored the increasingly fractured landscape of international diplomacy, former US President Donald Trump has unveiled a new initiative, the "Board of Peace," aimed at resolving global conflicts. Launched during the World Economic Forum in Davos, the proposal, initially framed as a temporary body to oversee Gaza's governance and reconstruction, has swiftly expanded its remit to encompass a broader spectrum of geopolitical disputes. However, the initiative has been met with considerable skepticism, particularly from traditional Western allies, raising questions about its efficacy and potential to fundamentally alter the existing international order.
The 'Board of Peace', with Trump himself designated as chairman in perpetuity, extended invitations to fifty nations. The core premise of permanent membership, however, hinges on a substantial financial commitment of one billion US dollars, a stipulation that has proven to be a significant barrier for many potential participants. While the signing ceremony saw representatives from Cyprus and Hungary in attendance – with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán endorsing the concept with the pithy declaration, "If Trump, then peace" – the broader European Union membership largely abstained. This limited engagement from established liberal democracies stands in stark contrast to a reported heavy participation from countries in the Middle East, Eurasia, and the Global South, suggesting a deliberate cultivation of an alternative diplomatic bloc.
The genesis of the board appeared to pivot rapidly from its initial focus on Gaza. The swift expansion of its mandate, coupled with Trump's unilateral decision-making, as evidenced by his public withdrawal of Canada's invitation via Truth Social, has fuelled concerns. Canadian officials, including Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne, had indicated that the country would not commit the substantial fee, a factor that seemingly precipitated Trump's decisive action. The withdrawal highlights the leader-driven nature of the initiative, where individual assent and financial capacity appear to supersede multilateral consensus-building.
Several invited nations, including Cyprus, reportedly declined participation due to a preference for adhering to common European Union positions and apprehensions that the 'Board of Peace' could inadvertently undermine the established authority of the United Nations. The UN, a cornerstone of post-war multilateralism, faces potential challenges to its primacy as Trump appears to be constructing new institutional frameworks designed for expediency and direct deal-making. The absence of major global powers and long-standing American allies from the board's nascent structure casts a long shadow over its potential to foster genuine, lasting global accord. Observers suggest that Trump's ambition may lie in forging a new constellation of international bodies, ostensibly centred on his own leadership, thereby challenging the established norms and architectures that have governed international relations for decades. The efficacy and long-term implications of this selectively curated platform remain to be seen, but its emergence undeniably signals a departure from conventional diplomatic engagement.