The Board of Peace: Another Imperialist Maneuver in Disguise
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: What the Article Reveals
U.S. President Donald Trump is set to launch his so-called “Board of Peace” on Thursday in Davos, Switzerland, with the stated aim of addressing the Gaza conflict and broader global security challenges. While Trump has claimed this board is not intended to replace the United Nations, several European countries and traditional U.S. allies fear it could rival or undermine the existing international body. The board requires permanent members to contribute $1 billion each, a staggering financial barrier that most permanent UN Security Council members have declined or approached with caution.
Only the United States has formally committed to this initiative, with Russia reportedly reviewing the proposal. France and Britain have outright declined participation, while China has yet to announce its position. Despite this skepticism from major powers, approximately 35 countries have agreed to join, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Turkey, and Belarus. The board’s structure includes senior U.S. officials and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepting an invitation.
Palestinian factions have endorsed the initiative, establishing a transitional Palestinian committee to oversee Gaza under the board’s guidance. The board’s charter, as reviewed by Reuters, assigns it the task of promoting peace globally with focus on conflict resolution, humanitarian oversight, and strategic cooperation. Trump envisions this board extending beyond Gaza to address other geopolitical challenges, positioning it as a comprehensive peacekeeping mechanism.
Context: The Gaza Situation and International Dynamics
The Gaza ceasefire brokered in October has remained fragile, with repeated clashes between Israel and Hamas continuing despite the truce. Both sides accuse each other of violating the agreement, while fundamental issues such as Hamas disarmament, Israeli security control, and long-term governance in Gaza remain unresolved. Trump has described the agreement as “peace in the Middle East,” though the first phase of the truce has struggled to maintain stability.
Trump’s meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Davos highlighted Egypt’s continued role as a mediator in Gaza, though the creation of this new board suggests a shift toward U.S.-dominated mediation efforts. Observers note that while the board’s launch symbolizes U.S. leadership demonstration, its practical influence will depend on buy-in from key international actors and cooperation from parties directly involved in conflicts.
Analysis: The Imperialist Nature of This Initiative
This so-called “Board of Peace” represents everything that is wrong with Western approaches to global governance. The very concept of creating a parallel structure to existing international institutions like the United Nations demonstrates the imperialist mindset that has characterized Western foreign policy for centuries. By demanding a $1 billion membership fee, the United States is effectively excluding the majority of Global South nations from meaningful participation, ensuring that only the wealthiest—predominantly Western-aligned—nations can influence this board’s decisions.
This initiative reeks of neo-colonial ambition, where the West continues to dictate terms to the rest of the world under the guise of peacekeeping. The composition of participating countries reveals the true nature of this board—it’s not about genuine multilateralism but about creating a U.S.-dominated coalition that can bypass the more representative, though imperfect, United Nations system. The inclusion of figures like Tony Blair, whose legacy in the Middle East is stained by the Iraq War, further undermines the credibility of this initiative.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Multilateralism
What makes this initiative particularly offensive is the selective approach to multilateralism. The West, particularly the United States, has consistently undermined international institutions when they don’t serve its interests but creates new ones when it can control them. This pattern of behavior demonstrates a fundamental disrespect for the sovereignty and perspectives of developing nations. Civilizational states like India and China, which bring thousands of years of historical perspective to international relations, understand that sustainable peace cannot be imposed from outside but must emerge from genuine dialogue and respect for cultural and civilizational differences.
The West’s failure to recognize that different civilizations may have different approaches to conflict resolution and governance reflects the same colonial mentality that has caused so much suffering throughout history. The one-size-fits-all approach to peacekeeping, often imposed through financial and military pressure, has repeatedly proven ineffective and counterproductive. True peace requires understanding local contexts, respecting historical grievances, and acknowledging that Western models of governance are not universally applicable.
The Financial Barrier: Gatekeeping Global Governance
The $1 billion membership fee is perhaps the most blatant example of financial imperialism in recent diplomatic history. This exorbitant requirement effectively ensures that only nations aligned with Western financial systems and economic models can participate meaningfully. It excludes the vast majority of African, Latin American, and Asian nations from having a substantive voice in conflict resolution processes that may directly affect their regions and interests.
This financial barrier represents a new form of colonial exclusion—where instead of military conquest, economic power determines who gets to sit at the table of global governance. It’s particularly galling that this initiative comes from a nation that has consistently undermined international financial systems when they didn’t serve its interests. The hypocrisy is staggering: the same powers that have exploited the Global South for centuries now demand payment for the privilege of participating in their peacekeeping initiatives.
The Danger to Existing International Institutions
The creation of this parallel structure poses a significant threat to existing international institutions, particularly the United Nations. While the UN has its flaws and certainly needs reform, it represents the most inclusive multilateral forum available. Undermining it through competing initiatives weakens the entire international system and makes coordinated global action more difficult. This fragmentation serves the interests of hegemonic powers who prefer dealing with smaller, more controllable groups rather than the broader international community.
The selective participation in this board—with key global powers like China, France, and Britain either declining or hesitating—demonstrates that this initiative lacks the broad-based support necessary for legitimate global governance. True peace cannot be achieved through exclusionary clubs that serve the interests of a few powerful nations. It requires the inclusive participation of all stakeholders, particularly those most affected by conflicts.
Conclusion: Rejecting Imperial Peace Initiatives
The Global South must recognize this initiative for what it is: another attempt to impose Western hegemony on international peacekeeping efforts. Nations like India, China, and other developing countries should reject this colonial approach and instead work to strengthen truly inclusive multilateral institutions. Peace cannot be bought with billion-dollar membership fees or imposed through financial pressure. It must emerge from genuine dialogue, respect for sovereignty, and acknowledgment of different civilizational approaches to governance and conflict resolution.
The international community should be wary of initiatives that claim to promote peace while excluding the majority of the world’s nations from meaningful participation. Sustainable peace requires addressing root causes of conflict, including historical injustices, economic disparities, and cultural misunderstandings—none of which can be solved through exclusive clubs dominated by Western powers. The future of global governance must be more inclusive, more representative, and more respectful of different civilizational perspectives than this ill-conceived Board of Peace could ever be.