Most European nations have shown hesitance in joining United States President Donald Trump’s newly established “Board of Peace,” intended for overseeing the reconstruction of Gaza, with a majority declining or suggesting they are “considering” their participation due to various concerns. Among European Union member states, only Hungary and Bulgaria have formally accepted the invitation, reflecting a more cohesive response compared to the controversial call for an invasion of Iraq by former President George W. Bush in 2003.
While some countries, including Spain, Britain, and Poland, are engaging with the proposal, France has declined on the grounds that the Board’s structure transcends the existing framework concerning Gaza, raising significant questions regarding its compatibility with the United Nations’ principles.
Notably, President Trump did not extend the invitation to Denmark, a longstanding ally, following diplomatic tensions that emerged over Greenland, a Danish territory. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump signed the charter for the Board of Peace on January 22, characterizing the initiative as potentially one of the most impactful entities ever established.
However, many nations view Trump’s endeavor as an attempt to replace the UN, which the board’s activities aim to complement. Despite Trump’s assertion of the UN’s importance, his administration’s actions suggest a disregard for the UN Charter, particularly regarding territorial sovereignty. This sentiment was amplified by the invitation extended to Russia amid its ongoing military engagement in Ukraine.
Experts suggest that Trump’s motivations may be tied to a desire for political gains ahead of the midterms, as he faces challenges domestically. Concurrently, the Board of Peace seeks substantial contributions from its members, with a lifetime membership fee of billion, although the allocation of these funds remains ambiguous.
The geopolitical landscape illuminates a more nuanced intention behind the Board’s formation. Analysts suggest that it may function as a mechanism to engage middle powers in a way that minimizes their autonomy and ability to negotiate independently, particularly with regard to the varied international coalitions emerging today.
The Board of Peace is purportedly designed to be a temporary administrative body, established in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which addresses the reconstruction of Gaza. Nevertheless, Trump’s charter expands the board’s mandate to encompass conflicts beyond Gaza, omitting any reference to the board’s intended duration or its specific objectives.
China outright rejected the invitation, reaffirming its commitment to an international order centered around the United Nations, and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized the centrality of the Security Council in overseeing global peace and security matters. His statements can be interpreted as a direct critique of Trump’s Board of Peace, underscoring the complexities of power and legitimacy in the current international order.
As President Trump takes on the role of chairman of this board, the lack of financial transparency and governance raises further questions about its operation, particularly given the broad mandate that allows him to make unilateral decisions. The unfolding situation will undoubtedly continue to draw scrutiny as it challenges existing frameworks of authority and cooperation in international relations.
#MiddleEastNews #PoliticsNews