Tariq Saeedi
As the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace (BoP) has now taken place, it’s an opportune moment to reflect on its implications and potential trajectory.
Chaired by President Trump, this gathering in Washington, D.C., brought together representatives from over two dozen nations, focusing primarily on Gaza’s fragile ceasefire and reconstruction.
While the discussions were framed around immediate postwar needs, they also hinted at a more expansive vision, allowing us to begin analyzing the BoP’s role in global affairs based on what was said—and how it was presented.
One clear positive is the mobilization of resources. With pledges totaling $7 billion from member nations for Gaza’s relief and rebuilding, plus an additional $10 billion from the United States to support the BoP’s broader efforts, substantial funds are now on the table.
Six countries have also committed troops to a 20,000-strong International Stabilization Force, signaling a concrete step toward security and rehabilitation in the region.
We can reasonably expect reconstruction work to ramp up soon, not just in Gaza but potentially in other areas if the BoP’s ambitions hold. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding, and that pudding should be served shortly—assuming these commitments translate into action without undue delays or political hurdles.
That said, two aspects of the meeting warrant closer scrutiny, as they raise questions about the BoP’s longer-term intentions and governance model.
First, there’s the expressed desire to extend the BoP’s involvement to other global hotspots. The charter of the BoP, ratified last month, defines its purpose broadly: to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” Notably, it makes no specific mention of Gaza, despite the UN Security Council Resolution 2803 limiting the BoP’s mandate to that territory through 2027.
Trump himself has described the initiative as one of his presidency’s most important, with potential to address conflicts worldwide. Yet, details on criteria for intervention remain vague. What thresholds would trigger BoP involvement—say, in Ukraine, Sudan, or elsewhere?
Without clear guidelines, this could lead to selective engagements driven more by geopolitical alliances than impartial need, potentially overlapping with existing UN missions.
This brings us to the second point: the BoP’s promise to oversee the United Nations itself.
Trump stated that the BoP would “almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly,” while working closely to strengthen it financially and operationally. In a rational world, oversight of a universal body like the UN—comprising every nation—should reside within the UN framework, not an external entity created by one president.
The UN Charter simply doesn’t provide for such supervision, and proposals to “fix” it raise concerns about targeting specific elements, like the Security Council’s veto powers held by Russia and China. Is the aim to circumvent these vetoes on issues like Gaza or broader conflicts?
The shape of this oversight is unclear—would it involve financial leverage, parallel resolutions, or direct intervention? And what instruments would enforce BoP decisions: its own forces, economic pressure, or something else? If the BoP and UN diverge on a hotspot, we could see operational clashes, such as competing peacekeeping deployments, eroding international cohesion.
For now, deeper insights are limited, but media reports and the absence of key allies like the UK, France, and Norway at the meeting suggest wariness about these ambitions. It’s alarming to consider that Trump appears to be crafting a new world order in an extemporaneous style, without established precedents or comprehensive consultations—essentially improvising without notes.
While the BoP’s focus on pragmatic solutions is commendable, its structure, with power concentrated in a handful of U.S.-appointed figures and Trump as indefinite chair, risks undermining the multilateral principles that have, however imperfectly, sustained global order for decades.
Time will tell if this evolves into a complementary force or a disruptive one, but the early signs call for careful observation. /// nCa, 20 February 2026