• Top-down, vain, delusional, marginalising, minilateral, pay-to-play club meant to usurp the UNSC role

By Fortune Madondo

Introduction

The Board of Peace (BoP) is described as an international organisation established in January 2026. It originated with the United States of America (US) President Donald Trump.

BoP’s purpose is stated as to promote peacekeeping around the world. Proposed in September of 2025 and formally established on the sidelines of the 56th World Economic Forum (Davos) in January 2026, BoP is mentioned in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2803 of 2025 as a“body tasked with overseeing the processes of the Gaza peace plan”

Initially conceived and focused as a response to the Gaza conflict in terms of Gaza reconstruction, the initiative seems to have been expanded into a global initiative.

According to the BoP Charter, the purpose of this “peace board” is to “promote stability, restore lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas threatened by conflict.”

 BoP also targets mobilising international resources for security and rebuilding.

The leadership of BoP is centred on the “Chair”, who is none other than the US president, Donald Trump, who has “ultimate power and authority.”

The board’s leadership also includes US appointed officials and private backers. The board prioritises wealthy allies and strategic partners like former United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister, Tony Blair. This gives BoP an exclusive, elite character.

Membership on the board is strictly by invitation from “Chairman Trump”. So far, 26 countries have responded to the invitation after a total of 62 countries have been invited by “Chairman Trump”.

However, many European countries have, of late, declined or decided to be a bit more cautious in positively responding to the invitation. Canada was initially invited, but after Canada’s leader, Mark Carney speech at Davos criticising Trump, the invitation was rescinded. In Africa, only Morocco and Egypt were invited. Interestingly but tellingly, not even one Sub-Saharan country received the invitation.

The board’s charter designates the US as the depository and is created to work with international law and United Nations (UN) authorised mechanisms. However, Sania Faisal El- Husseini professor of international relations at Arab- American University in Palestine, disagrees and notes that the organisation,” is not an international body with legal personality“.

BoP Charter empowers the board to oversee peace efforts, manage resources, and deploy personnel, but with significant decision- making authority vested in the Chair (Donald Trump) and an executive board. Interestingly, the executive board’s members are appointed by the Chair.

The Charter grants the “Chair” authority to “convene meetings, approve agendas and decisions, appoint executive board members, and VETO executive board decisions.  The BoP Charter gives “Chairman Trump” sweeping authority and exclusive powers.

Talk of too much power being invested in a “Chair”, this certainly fits the bill, a classic case of “power, too much power being invested in an individual”. Bloomberg described this arrangement as Trump holding the board’s “ultimate decision-making power”.

According to observers, the BoP announced on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, January 2026, bears little resemblance to what was envisioned in the 2803 Resolution of the UN in 2025, prompting the Guardian newspaper to describe BoP as a “pay-to-play club”  centred not on the task at hand in Gaza but rather on Trump’s affairs.

According to Trump, the BoP is the ” most prestigious Board of Leaders ever assembled, at any time”.

But the reality is that the board has failed to attract enthusiasm from most world leaders, especially in Europe. This initiative has failed to gain support from a number of Western countries, notably the United Kingdom (UK), France, Norway, Germany, Portugal and others.

World Reaction

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer pointed out that the UK was “concerned about Putin’s role” in the BoP.

This followed the invitation and acceptance of the invitation of Russia to the board. In the same breath, Zelensky of Ukraine categorically stated that it will be difficult for Ukraine to join a board alongside Putin’s Russia.

With France stating its intention to “not answer favourably” to Trump’s invitation, Trump threatened to impose a 200% tariff on French wines and champagne. In a public spat, Trump was quoted as saying of  Emmanuel Macron, “Nobody wants him because he is going to be out of office very soon”.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said participation in such a board *would be incompatible with the Italian constitution.German officials described the board as a *”counter-draft* ” to the UN and were surprised that it proposed a permanent international organisation to address global conflicts instead of focusing solely on a Gaza ceasefire.

The Portuguese government expressed doubt as “The way the BoP charter is written is somewhat ambiguous as to whether (BoP) could have a scope other than just in Gaza”.

Slovenia’s Prime Minister, Robert Golob, declined the invitation to BoP, pointing out that BoP “dangerously interferes with the broader international order “.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed concern that the BoP arrangement can “concentrate excessive power in the US presidency and overshadow the role of the UN”.

Canada’s Mark Carney intended to accept the invitation, but not under the terms outlined by Trump.  Canadian foreign minister Francois- Philippe Champagne openly said that he would not pay the “US$1 billion US price tag”.

Also, Mark Carney’s speech at Davos, January 2026, seemed to have irked Trump, who responded by rescinding Canada’s invitation to the board. Carney, in his Davos speech, had warned of “an era of great power rivalry”, and also argued that the “era of US- led world order had ended”.

In what seems like Trump’s attempt to borrow moral credibility for the dubious board ended in total humiliation. Trump had invited to the board the US- born Pontiff, Pope Leo XIV. The Vatican responded with a firm”no”to Trump’s invitation.

The Pope’s message was clear: world peace requires multilateral cooperation, not what the board is trying to introduce, minilateralism. Peace does not come from egoistic arrangements like Trump’s board or from alternative forums or pay-to-play diplomacy.

The Vatican categorically stated that it wanted no part in what many observers see as Trump’s attempts to sideline the UNand line his own pockets under a false guise of peace-making.

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, when declining the invitation, made it crystal clear by saying that there are “critical issues”.

With Trump’s project, and when it comes to global crises like Gaza, it should be the United Nations —not a billionaire-backed side committee taking the lead. Therefore, due to several concerns the Vatican had about the board initiative, the “Vatican will not participate as a result”.

Vatican flatly rejected a U.S. invitation to join the Trump-led “Board of Peace” for Gaza. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin is on record for insisting that,“At the international level, it should above all be the U.N. that manages these crises.”

A Critique

Of the 62 invited countries, only 26, less than half, have signed the board’s charter. Generally, the BoP has failed to garner support in the European Union (EU) and rightly so because of glaring question marks on the composition, power structure and legality of the board.

Many observers have dismissed the board as an alternative routebeing envisaged by the US administration to grab power and jump into their project on global domination. This alternative is nothing more than Trump’s cunning attempt to make use of BoP, where he(Trump) only has veto power rather than sticking with the consensus-driven UNSC.

The board has been described as a “top-down project”to advance elite world domination by an exclusive private and billionaire interests, off course, with Trump at the head. According to a senior policy analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, the board is nothing more than just “an instrument to assert Trump’s control over global affairs”.

At one point in time, Trump said that the BoP might “replace the UN and defend its reputation”.

Trump is a usurper, trying to dangerously rewrite or remap the international relations world order and global politics by taking over the role of the UNSC, and replacing multilateralism with minilateralism (rule of global affairs by a few elite).

A lot of global political commentators have not used nice adjectives when describing Trump’s BoP. Sydney Morning Herald (Australian Newspaper) described the board as avanity project.

The Financial Times described the board as an elitist,pay-to-play club.

Mary Robinson, a former chair of the Elders, described the board as a delusion of power.

All such criticism, negativity and unfavourable judgment of the board is suggestive and indicative of how other world powers have negatively and with pessimism viewed with concern Trump’s board.

Initially, the board was meant and conceived to deal with the reconstruction of Gaza, but now the board’s mandate seems to have been expanded to a global player in the same breath as the UN. All this has not been welcomed with open arms by other European powers, Middle East nations and countries of the world.

A closer analysis of the board’s charter reveals that it is nothing more than an attempt to “usurp the role” of the UNSC, “bypass” consensus-driven UN, cunningly, “grab VETO power”, and the possible consequences to the world are dire and concerning.

Possible fragmentation of global collectivism in response to conflicts in favour of “protecting the interests of an elite, select, exclusive club members”.

Certainly, such a development is not favourable to creating an environment of global sustainable strategy in terms of promoting enduring peace in this world.

How can sustainable and lasting peace be achieved when some nations are marginalised and excluded across the financial and diplomatic divide? Why should excessive power be invested in the presidency of one country?

A presidency with the power to appoint, dismiss, invite, set the agenda and Veto resolutions. This is surely an attempt at a power grab by the “Chair” of BoP, with the power to silence and dominate other nations at the global stage. This is not only wrong, but it is unethical and discriminatory.

It constitutes a serious lapse in judgment for those who conceived the idea and arrangement of the board. That only the billionaire elite matter in bringing about enduring peace in conflict areas of the world. Furthermore, without the involvement of the entire international community, the board seriously lacks full international legitimacy.

The board’s attempt at minilateralism(a form of international cooperation involving a small, exclusive group of nations) adds to the lack of international cooperation, combined with the board’s informal and exclusive nature,… the club seems destined for a “multi-billionaire failure “, writes Thomas Cavanna (19 February,2026).

Surely, elitist and exclusive is not the best foot forward in dealing with world conflicts. It is going to fragment efforts in dealing with conflicts instead of having aligned, integrated, or unified efforts under the banner of the UNSC.

The BoP charter itself is also guilty of excessive personalisation, which is equally problematic. Everything is for the US presidency, in this case, Trump, to determine. It’s like Trump is the alpha & omega of the board.

Everything starts and ends with Trump in this so-called “peace board”. Is it President Trump determining who receives membership?Trump decides who receives invitations? Does Trump control the board’s finances? Trump sets the agenda?

Trump is the only one who can veto decisions, and it is Trump alone who can expel executive board members. In the board arrangement, Trump could and can be replaced only if he resigns or is unanimously declared incapacitated, and he alone, Trump alone, can appoint a new chair. Typically, “power-grabbing”,the similarity to Hitler’s laws is frightening.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Further Marginalised

Exclusion of Sub- Sahara continent goes deeper than non- invitation, reflective of an imperial power hell-bent on marginalising the continent. Kenya, long considered a key US security partner and regional mediator, has not gone unnoticed.

Nairobi has come out in the open, publicly dismissive and critical of the BoP initiative, warning that “Creating parallel global peace mechanisms risks undermining the existing UN- centred international order “

Indeed, very true, the risk of fragmenting response to conflicts is real, instead of having one collective banner under the UN. The initiative can and could fragment instead of collectivism in response to world conflicts. South Africa was also publicly dismissive of the initiative.

Pretoria described BoP as a“private… body constituted of unaccountable billionaires with an agenda to replace and destroy the UN with a colonial-style mandate system”.

Trump’s policies have always been to marginalise Africa, and this is characteristically and crystal clear in his BoP arrangement. The recent formalisation of BoP at the Davos World Economic Forum, January 2026, has clearly and without an iota of doubt indicated where Sub-Saharan Africa lies in Trump’s world order, that is, on the “periphery, marginalised, insignificant and ignored”.

Not even one Sub-Saharan African country received an invitation to BoP. According to Priyl Singh, Institute for Security Studies (ISS), senior researcher, “But I think sub-Saharan Africa is completely marginalised. I don’t think there’s been any invitation extended to any country in that region”.

This ignoring of Sub-Saharan Africa reminds observers of Canada’s Mark Carney’s words at Davos (January 2026): “Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu”.

And surely one can be forgiven when one points out that, certainly, Africa is not on Trump’s new world order table, then Africa is on Trump’s menu!! To be devoured to satisfy the insatiable imperial appetite and interests.

Here is a president on record for describing African nations as “shithole countries”,and Africa is not taken aback when that president has, of late, become more openly hostile to Africa. On his return to office, he has since slashed aid, revoked preferential access to US markets and suspended visas or made them prohibitively expensive.

South Africa, one of Africa’s economic giant has not been spared… accusing Pretoria of subjecting White farmers to genocide and seizing their land (ignoring evidence to the contrary) and even boycotted the G20 2025 Johannesburg summit.

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, has been accused by Trump of “Christian genocide” and of failing to stop the killings of Christians. Recently, Trump described the Somalis from Somalia as “low-IQ people” and described Somalia as not a nation.

In the Great Lakes Region, Trump has championed a fake and fraudulent peace treaty between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. Typical, Trump hoodwinked the world into believing that he had brokered a peace deal between DRC and Rwanda through that fake and fraudulent peace treaty.

In fact, as he is on record saying after official signatures by Felix Tshisekedi of DRC & Paul Kagame of Rwanda, that due to the Peace Treaty, the “US had secured access to critical rare minerals in the Congo”, thanks to the fraudulent Washington brokered peace treaty.

It is an open secret that Trump’s main concern was securing the US’s access to critical, rare metals in the Congo, not about bringing genuine, sustainable peace to the Congo.

Conclusion

Nations of this world should categorically reject BoP and everything it stands for. BoP should be dismissed and rejected with the contempt it deserves. A billionaire, elite-backed side committee, and some shadow global forums have no business in maintaining and sustaining global lasting peace. Durable peace cannot be achieved by forming an exclusive, billionaire pay-to-play club or by forming a shadow global forum or by usurping the role of the UN or by giving excessive powers to the US presidency.

The question is, why should responding to world conflicts be for a select, elite few, if enduring, durable, lasting peace is to be achieved in this world? Why should peace-building efforts be limited to a select few? Why replace the UN multilateralism approach with elite & exclusive minilateralism?

To make matters worse, a US$1 billion membership fee. Even if Sub-Saharan African nation/s had been invited, the cost itself would be prohibitive for developing countries already feeling the weight of debt burden and developmental needs…and after all, was it worth it?

The message for Sub – Sahara Africa from all this debacle is clear, Africa is nowhere near any importance in Trump’s world order, it simply does not have a seat at his so called board’s “prestigious table” but to borrow from Mark Carney’s speech, certainly, Africa is on Trump’s “menu” to be devoured for US imperial interests whenever it suits the US.

 F Madondo (African Teacher), fortmada123@gmail. com