Trump's "Board of Peace" Launches Amid Controversy and Skepticism
- Mpho Dube
- Jan 23
- 2 min read

US President Donald Trump.
By Mpho Dube, Editor-in-Chief, The Azanian
Truth. Fearless. Unfiltered.
US President Donald Trump's newly launched "Board of Peace" has sparked debate and raised eyebrows among world leaders, with only 19 countries signing up out of 60 invited.
The board aims to secure enduring peace in conflict zones, but critics see it as a privatized UN with the US president holding significant power.
The board's charter grants Trump extraordinary powers, including choosing members, setting agendas, and wielding a casting vote. Membership costs $1 billion for a permanent seat, with funds controlled by an executive board selected by Trump.
This has led to concerns that the board could prioritize wealth over representation and undermine existing international institutions like the United Nations.
The launch coincided with Trump's attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he faced criticism for threatening to acquire Greenland. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's speech at Davos was hailed as "epoch-defining," contrasting with Trump's divisive address.
Some countries, like Israel and Azerbaijan, have agreed to join the board, while others, such as the UK, France, and Canada, have expressed skepticism or declined to participate. European officials worry that the initiative could bypass existing international institutions and centralize decision-making power in the hands of the US president.
Trump claimed that 59 countries had signed on to the Board, but only 19 countries attended the signing ceremony. The board's remit extends beyond Gaza, targeting conflict zones worldwide. Key figures include Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The Board of Peace's future hangs in the balance, with its legitimacy and effectiveness uncertain. Critics argue that the board's structure and membership process raise serious questions about accountability, legality, and its relationship to existing international law.




Comments