Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” unveiled as a mechanism for global conflict management, is portrayed less as a genuine peacebuilding institution than as a symbolic assertion of power that reflects a deeper erosion of multilateral governance and institutional legitimacy.

The contradictions here are revealing. A board that bills itself as a peace forum is already deeply entangled in the very structures of power it claims to supersede: invitations to controversial figures, opaque financing arrangements, and a chairmanship that could last a lifetime. Countries have been told they can secure permanent membership only by paying $1 billion for a seat, reinforcing the sense of this body as less a neutral peace architecture and more a global club with Trump at its apex.

The Asylum of Peace

Whether or not the initiative ever functions effectively — and acceptance from many governments remains uncertain — the spectacle reveals something deeper about the state of American geopolitical direction. In recent months, the U.S. has engaged in actions that suggest a restorationist drive rather than a coherent strategy grounded in law, multilateral consensus, or predictable norms:

Taken together, these episodes display a pattern: a refusal to operate within existing institutional constraints, and instead, a tendency to create ad hoc instruments of authority that only appear to function like international norms. The Board of Peace, in this sense, feels less like peacebuilding and more like an imperial court without constitutional accountability — a body that claims universality but is deeply particular in its........

© New Eastern Outlook