Comments
OP-ED - When Donald Trump unveiled his new “Board of Peace” at Davos, he wrapped it in the language of diplomacy, stability, and global cooperation. The setting was deliberate: the World Economic Forum provides instant legitimacy, glossy headlines, and the aura of statesmanship. But strip away the branding, and the initiative looks far less like a peace project than a personal power platform—one designed to elevate Trump while sidestepping the institutions that traditionally restrain executive authority.
At its core, the Board of Peace is not multilateral in the classic sense. It does not rely on shared governance, binding rules, or consensus among equals. Instead, it is structured around centralized control, with Trump positioned as the indispensable figure—chair, gatekeeper, and final authority. Participation flows through him. Influence depends on access to him. Accountability, if it exists at all, is undefined.
This is not an accident. Trump has long been hostile to institutions that limit unilateral action. He resents NATO’s collective decision-making, dismisses the United Nations as cumbersome, and treats international law as optional. The Board of Peace offers an appealing alternative: a bespoke forum where diplomacy becomes transactional, norms are negotiable, and outcomes depend less on law than on leverage.
“Peace,” in this context, functions as branding. It softens the image of power consolidation and reframes unilateralism as benevolence. History is full of examples where leaders have used the language of peace to justify expanded authority, sidestep oversight, or normalize extraordinary actions. Trump’s version fits neatly into that tradition—particularly when the structure of the board provides no clear safeguards against conflicts of interest, favoritism, or politicized decision-making.
The initiative also carries domestic political benefits. For Trump, it reinforces a familiar narrative: traditional institutions failed, elites bungled global affairs, and only he can cut through the chaos. The Board of Peace allows him to claim the mantle of global leadership without congressional approval, treaty obligations, or sustained scrutiny. It is foreign policy theater designed for domestic consumption as much as international signaling.
Supporters argue that existing institutions are slow, bureaucratic, and ineffective—and that a new mechanism could bring agility to conflict resolution. That critique is not entirely wrong. But agility without accountability is not reform; it is risk. Peacebuilding is not merely about deals and declarations. It requires transparency, legitimacy, and trust—qualities that emerge from institutions, not personalities.
What makes the Board of Peace troubling is not just what it proposes to do, but what it displaces. By creating a parallel structure centered on personal authority, Trump undermines the already fragile system of international norms that constrain power and protect smaller nations, civilians, and dissenters. In doing so, he advances a worldview in which peace is not the product of law and cooperation, but of dominance and deal-making.
The question, then, is not whether the Board of Peace will produce photo ops or headlines—it already has. The real question is whether the world should entrust peace to a structure built around one man’s control, insulated from democratic oversight, and untethered from the institutions designed to protect the rule of law.
History suggests caution. Peace built on personality rarely lasts. Power, once centralized, rarely gives itself up.
(Prepared by CityWatch staff.)
