The Board of Peace: Imperial Power Masquerading as Global Governance

The Facts: A Transactional Takeover of Global Diplomacy

The so-called “Board of Peace” represents one of the most alarming developments in contemporary international relations, emerging from Donald Trump’s return to global prominence. This initiative, framed as an innovative conflict-resolution mechanism, fundamentally restructures diplomatic engagement by centralizing authority under Trump’s lifelong chairmanship while requiring billion-dollar contributions for permanent membership. The executive board comprises a concerning blend of state power, private capital, and political loyalty, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, World Bank president Ajay Banga, and other Trump-aligned advisers.

The Board’s launch at the World Economic Forum in Davos was strategically calculated to appeal to elite circles, presenting governance as performance backed by capital rather than legal consensus. Support has primarily come from certain Middle Eastern nations including UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, largely due to the Gaza dimension, while Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reported acceptance has alarmed European capitals. France has outright rejected participation, citing concerns about undermining the United Nations, while the UK and Canada remain cautious.

The Greenland Dimension: Coercion as Diplomacy

Trump’s simultaneous push to acquire or dominate Greenland reveals the Board’s underlying philosophy: power personalized and institutions treated as optional. At Davos in January 2026, Trump announced seeking “immediate negotiations” to acquire Greenland from Denmark, arguing that “it’s the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land.” He threatened seven NATO allies with tariffs to compel agreement and later claimed a “framework of a future deal” had been reached with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, though no details were provided and diplomatic sources confirmed no agreement for American ownership or control.

This approach demonstrates the fundamental tension between transactional thinking and structural diplomacy that characterizes the Trump Doctrine. The movement from proposal to unsubstantiated framework, achieved through economic coercion against alliance partners, represents a dangerous departure from established diplomatic norms.

Historical Context: The Erosion of Multilateralism

The Board of Peace emerges against a backdrop of increasing Western skepticism toward multilateral institutions that don’t exclusively serve their interests. For decades, the United Nations and related bodies have provided platforms for Global South nations to articulate their perspectives and challenge Western hegemony. However, when these institutions begin to reflect the changing global balance of power and accommodate voices from developing nations, the West consistently seeks alternative mechanisms that recenter their control.

This pattern reflects a deeper historical continuity: the Global North’s reluctance to relinquish the privileged position it established through centuries of colonialism and imperialism. The Board of Peace represents merely the latest iteration of this tendency, dressing imperial ambition in the language of innovation and efficiency while fundamentally undermining the principles of equitable representation.

The Global South’s Strategic Dilemma

South Africa’s conspicuous silence regarding Trump’s Greenland push illustrates the complex calculations facing Global South nations. While Pretoria has negligible direct trade with Greenland, its relationship with Denmark has deepened significantly, particularly in renewable energy cooperation. The 2023 joint visit by Danish and Dutch prime ministers resulted in a $200 million investment by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners in Mulilo Energy Holdings, with cooperation extending to wind-energy mapping, smart grids, green hydrogen, and labor-market compacts.

Trump’s aggressive posture toward Denmark threatens to disrupt these developing partnerships, creating both risk and opportunity for South Africa. The risk involves European partners becoming distracted by strategic confrontation with the US, potentially deprioritizing development and climate partnerships with the Global South. The opportunity lies in the diplomatic space created by Trump’s coercive approach toward allies, allowing South Africa to realign more assertively with Europe.

The Irony of Selective Sovereignty

The supreme irony lies in Washington’s expectation of uncritical acquiescence while having previously boycotted South Africa’s G20 presidency. This double standard exemplifies the Western approach to sovereignty: sacrosanct when protecting their interests, negotiable when confronting others. South Africa has consistently invoked sovereignty principles regarding Ukraine, Palestine, and elsewhere, yet faces pressure to remain silent when Western powers undermine these very principles.

This isn’t about choosing between Washington and Copenhagen but recognizing that the Board of Peace represents less a peace project than a power-projection platform that collapses diplomacy, investment, and coercion into a single transactional framework. This model fundamentally contradicts South Africa’s foreign policy tradition grounded in multilateralism, UN authority, and negotiated settlements.

The Structural Reality of Power

From a realist perspective, the Board of Peace misunderstands the nature of international power. NATO, for instance, isn’t a charity nor a transactional contract but diplomatic infrastructure through which the United States converts material superiority into structured influence. Paying for NATO isn’t evidence of exploitation by allies but the price of maintaining centrality in Western security architecture.

Trump’s transactional approach measures alliance value in immediate, tangible returns rather than positional advantage. In reality, dominant powers necessarily bear asymmetric burdens because diplomatic leadership itself generates obligations. The hegemon pays more because it has more to lose from systemic instability and more to gain from shaping outcomes. This isn’t altruism but rational self-interest under conditions of anarchy.

The Path Dependency Challenge

The Greenland episode illustrates the costs of ignoring path dependency. By threatening tariffs against seven NATO allies to compel territorial negotiations, the United States consumed diplomatic capital accumulated over decades. The military exercises conducted by alliance partners in response represent not merely symbolic protest but structural hedging. When core allies question whether American security guarantees are conditional on compliance with territorial demands, they begin adjusting force posture, procurement decisions, and diplomatic alignments accordingly.

Acquiring Greenland wouldn’t transfer Denmark’s costs but would multiply them. Denmark maintains minimal infrastructure in Greenland because it operates under NATO’s security umbrella, with the United States providing the ultimate guarantee. Direct American sovereignty would require comprehensive Arctic defense infrastructure, expanded surveillance capabilities, and logistics networks to support operations in one of the world’s most hostile environments.

Conclusion: Rejecting Imperial Governance

The Board of Peace represents everything that’s wrong with contemporary global governance: elite-driven, capital-backed, and fundamentally anti-democratic. It treats peace as a commodity to be purchased rather than a condition to be built through inclusive dialogue and respect for sovereignty. For the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China that offer alternative visions of international order, this initiative represents an alarming regression to 19th-century power politics.

We must categorically reject this model of governance by cheque book and proximity to power. Peace cannot be outsourced to personality, and global order cannot survive if governance is reduced to deals among the powerful. The international community, particularly developing nations, must strengthen existing multilateral institutions while developing alternative frameworks that genuinely reflect the world’s diversity rather than serving Western interests.

The struggle against this new imperialism requires courage and clarity from Global South nations. Silence is itself a choice, and in a world where Trump’s doctrine increasingly treats sovereignty as negotiable and institutions as disposable, our long-term interests lie not in quiet acquiescence but in strategic defiance. We must build alliances based on mutual respect and shared development goals rather than coercion and transaction. The future of global governance depends on our ability to resist this latest manifestation of Western hegemony and advance a truly inclusive international order.