What began as a UN-endorsed mechanism for Gaza has transformed into something far broader and more controversial. The “Board of Peace,” championed by the US administration, now stands accused of being a vehicle designed not to support the international system, but to supplant it.
Last November, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to endorse the board, under the understanding it would formalize a Gaza ceasefire and oversee a temporary administration for the territory. The resolution passed with the hope of anchoring US engagement in a lasting peace process. However, the charter recently circulated to member states reveals a starkly different ambition.
Gaza is not mentioned. Instead, the document positions the board as a permanent, global institution for peace and governance, promising a “pragmatic” and “nimble” alternative to existing bodies—a clear, if unnamed, critique of the United Nations. The structure outlined grants sweeping, unilateral authority to its Chairman, a role held by the US President. He alone selects members, sets the agenda, and can issue binding resolutions. Membership appears contingent on the Chairman’s favor, with an option for a “life-membership” reportedly priced at one billion dollars.
This model replaces one form of global inequity—the permanent five members of the Security Council—with another: influence seemingly accessible primarily to the wealthiest nations, and ultimate power resting with a single individual. While the board’s framework includes sub-committees for Gaza, including a proposed international stabilization force, these are now viewed by many diplomats as potential tools to sideline established UN humanitarian and reconstruction agencies.
The initiative faces significant practical hurdles. Key elements, such as restoring a Palestinian administrative role in Gaza, are firmly opposed by the current Israeli government, leaving the ceasefire in a fragile, interim state. For Palestinians, this means continued displacement and vulnerability. Furthermore, the inclusion of figures like Russia’s president as a prospective member casts doubt on the board’s capacity or intent to address conflicts like the war in Ukraine.
The international community now confronts a difficult choice. Declining to participate, as some nations have attempted, has reportedly triggered retaliatory economic measures from Washington. Joining, however, implies endorsing a structure that undermines multilateral principles and centers global diplomacy on a single, powerful patron.
The “Board of Peace” has evolved from a specific peacekeeping instrument into a bold challenge to the post-war international order. Its future will test whether the world’s nations acquiesce to a new, transactional model of diplomacy or reaffirm their commitment to a multilateral system, however imperfect.