US President Donald Trump’s suggestion that his newly created “Board of Peace” could potentially replace the United Nations has triggered unease among diplomats and international officials, amid fears that the initiative may undermine the world body’s long-standing role in global peace and security.
The proposed board, initially presented as a mechanism to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza, has drawn scrutiny over its broad mandate, governance structure and controversial membership provisions. Concerns have intensified following Trump’s remarks criticising the UN and questioning its effectiveness.
According to diplomats, doubts about the initiative predated Trump’s comments, with particular attention on a provision in the board’s draft charter that allows countries to secure permanent seats by pledging $1 billion. Critics argue that such a model risks politicising peace efforts and sidelining multilateral norms.
The White House has announced a founding Executive Board that includes Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. A draft charter obtained by CNN states that Trump would serve as chairman indefinitely, with removal only possible through voluntary resignation or a unanimous decision by the Executive Board on grounds of incapacity. A future US president may appoint an additional American representative.
Trump has reportedly sent invitations to dozens of countries and is expected to host a signing ceremony on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. While nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have confirmed participation, others remain undecided, and France has declined outright.
The inclusion of Russia among the invited countries has sparked alarm, given its ongoing war in Ukraine. China and Belarus have also reportedly received invitations.
“President Putin would certainly use Russia’s membership on the Board of Peace to undermine the UN and sow divisions among America’s allies,” said Robert Wood, a former US deputy ambassador to the United Nations. British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper echoed similar concerns, saying, “Putin is not a man of peace, and I don’t think he belongs in any organisation with peace in its name.”
Officials familiar with the charter say the board’s scope appears to extend far beyond Gaza and does not explicitly reference the territory. Instead, it defines the Board of Peace as “an international organisation that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”
Trump appeared to reinforce suspicions about the board’s broader ambition during a White House briefing, where he criticised the UN’s track record. “The UN just hasn’t been very helpful. I’m a big fan of the UN’s potential, but it has never lived up to it,” he said, adding that the organisation failed to resolve conflicts he claims to have addressed without its involvement.
France cited concerns about the creation of a parallel system to the UN in explaining its decision not to join the initiative. A spokesperson for the French Foreign Ministry said the board’s charter raised “serious questions” about its compatibility with the principles and mandate of the United Nations.
Irish Foreign Minister Helen McEntee said Dublin would give the invitation “careful consideration” but warned that the proposed body’s mandate appeared broader than implementing a Gaza peace plan. “The United Nations has a unique legitimacy to maintain international peace and security,” she said, adding that its role is “more important now than ever.”
The UN’s top humanitarian official, Tom Fletcher, dismissed suggestions that the Board of Peace could replace the United Nations, while former US Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller questioned the initiative’s practicality. “I just don’t see how you operationalise this,” Miller said, arguing that the UN, despite its flaws, remains irreplaceable.
Under the proposed rules, board members would serve three-year terms, while countries seeking permanent seats must pledge $1 billion. US officials insist the contribution is not an entry fee and say the funds would be directed towards rebuilding Gaza, though detailed plans remain unclear.
“Not every country capable of paying $1 billion is necessarily best suited to oversee peace and security globally,” Wood cautioned, noting that any attempt to supplant the UN would likely face significant international resistance.