Is Trump building his “own” NATO for a billion dollars?

A Mission Expanded to Include Global Conflicts

Although the Board of Peace was initially presented as part of phase two of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, its scope extends far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his letter to Argentine President Javier Milei, Donald Trump stated that the board would seek to “consolidate peace in the Middle East,” while adding that it would undertake a “bold new approach to resolving global conflicts.” This wording immediately signaled that the initiative was not limited to Gaza but aimed to establish a more permanent structure for resolving international conflicts.

The proposed charter, cited by the Financial Times, defines the Board of Peace as an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore trustworthy governance that respects the rule of law, and secure lasting peace in areas affected by or threatened with conflict. The charter adds that “lasting peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to move away from approaches and institutions that have too often failed.” This last sentence is particularly significant, as it suggests an implicit criticism of existing institutions, notably the UN, which is often accused of inefficiency in resolving major conflicts.

Trump’s criticism of the UN fascinates me. It is both justified and deeply hypocritical. Justified, because the UN has failed to prevent and resolve numerous conflicts, paralyzed by its own veto mechanism and constant compromises. Hypocritical, because it is Trump who is saying this—the very man who withdrew his country from numerous international agreements and who systematically weakened multilateral institutions during his first term. It’s as if the arsonist were criticizing the firefighters for failing to extinguish the fire he himself had stoked. And what frightens me is that he’s proposing his own solution—one that centralizes power in his own hands rather than seeking to improve existing institutions.

Israel’s Opposition and the Council’s Composition

The composition of the executive council for Gaza, announced on Friday, January 17, sparked immediate reactions, particularly from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He stated that the council’s composition “had not been coordinated with Israel and ran counter to its policy.” The lack of details regarding the specific aspects that displeased the Israeli government has left room for speculation, but this opposition underscores the inherent difficulties in establishing a governance structure for Gaza that satisfies all stakeholders.

The 11-member executive board includes figures such as Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff, as well as representatives from other countries, including Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Qatari diplomat Ali Al Thawadi, UN Coordinator for Middle East Peace Sigrid Kaag, the UAE Minister of International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy, and the Israeli-Cypriot businessman Yakir Gabay. This composition reflects a balance between Trump allies and representatives of regional powers, but it has been perceived as insufficiently representative of Palestinian interests, which has fueled criticism of the council’s impartiality.

Europe Faces a Strategic Choice

European reactions have been marked by particular caution and restraint. Several European leaders have received invitations, but their responses have been measured, reflecting divisions within the European Union over the best approach to take toward this Trump-led initiative. The lack of an official response from countries such as France and Germany suggests that they are carefully assessing the implications of potential membership, aware that it could affect their relations with other international partners and their standing within existing multilateral institutions.

A U.S. official told the Associated Press that the expanded role for the Peace Council remained “aspirational.” The official added that Trump and his advisers believed such a role was possible, particularly as Washington and other UN members had repeatedly expressed frustration with the international organization. This statement suggests that the U.S. administration is aware of the obstacles to establishing such a structure but continues to believe in its viability. The fact that the White House clarifies that the council is not intended to replace the UN indicates an attempt to reassure international partners about the intentions behind this initiative.

What strikes me about the European position is its paralysis in the face of Trump’s audacity. Europe is caught between its historical dependence on the United States and its desire to preserve an international order based on multilateral institutions. Participating in the Board of Peace would amount to endorsing a challenge to that order. Refusing would mean exposing itself to Washington’s wrath. And in the meantime, Trump continues to move forward, to propose, and to impose his agenda. It is as if Europe has become a spectator of its own history, incapable of offering a credible alternative to the American vision, whether Trumpian or traditional.

Russia and China: Strategic Invitations

Invitations extended to powers such as Russia and China have also raised questions. According to TASS, Russian President Vladimir Putin received an invitation to join the council, and the Kremlin has indicated that it is reviewing all the details of this proposal. The invitation to Russia is particularly significant in the context of current tensions between Moscow and the West, particularly following the invasion of Ukraine. It could be interpreted as an attempt by Trump to reestablish direct dialogue with Moscow, bypassing existing multilateral structures.

China’s invitation, if confirmed, would have similar implications in the context of Sino-American rivalry. Beijing might view this invitation as recognition of its growing role in world affairs, but it might also reject it to avoid being perceived as aligning with a U.S. initiative. The responses of these two powers will be crucial in determining the viability of the Board of Peace as a platform for international dialogue. If they reject the invitation, the risk of the Board being perceived as a structure dominated by U.S. allies will increase significantly.

Governance Without Palestinian Representation

One of the most controversial aspects of the Board of Peace concerns its application to Gaza. The board is supposed to oversee “capacity-building for governance, regional relations, reconstruction, attracting investment, large-scale financing, and capital mobilization” in the enclave. However, the absence of Palestinians from the first groups announced was seen as a worrying sign regarding the nature of this governance. Several observers have pointed out that it is impossible to establish effective governance for Gaza without the direct participation of Palestinians.

The establishment of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG)—a technocratic committee of Palestinians tasked with managing the day-to-day administration of Gaza in the absence of Hamas—was announced at the same time. This committee would be overseen by an eleven-member executive council, creating a complex structure in which Palestinians are expected to handle day-to-day operations but under international supervision. This model has been compared to other experiences with international governance, which are often criticized for their lack of effectiveness and local legitimacy.

What revolts me about this approach is the idea that Palestinians are not considered legitimate actors in shaping their own future. They are being offered a technocratic committee, supervised by foreigners, with a governance mechanism imposed upon them. This is a continuation of a colonial history in which local peoples are assumed to be incapable of self-governance and in need of international guardians. And Trump, with his usual flair for dramatization, presents this as a bold solution, a new pragmatic approach, when in reality it is a repetition of the very same patterns of domination that have failed in the past.

The Challenges of Reconstruction and Stabilization

The reconstruction of Gaza represents a colossal challenge, both on a human and economic level. Years of conflict have left the enclave in a state of massive destruction, with infrastructure in ruins, a collapsed economy, and a traumatized population. The Board of Peace, if it is established, will face the immense task of coordinating reconstruction efforts, attracting the necessary investments, and establishing stable governance structures. The scale of this task raises questions about the actual capacity of a new international body to manage a project of such complexity.

Financing the reconstruction represents another major challenge. Even with contributions of one billion dollars from certain permanent members, Gaza’s needs far exceed that amount. Estimates of reconstruction costs vary considerably, but they run into the tens of billions of dollars. The Board of Peace’s ability to mobilize these resources will depend on its credibility with the international community and its ability to reassure potential donors that funds will be used effectively and transparently. Corruption and mismanagement have historically been major obstacles to reconstruction projects in the region.

A Tradition of Parallel Forums

The idea of creating parallel forums alongside existing international institutions is not new in diplomatic history. Several similar initiatives have emerged over the decades, with varying degrees of success. Some forums have succeeded in complementing or influencing multilateral institutions, while others have remained marginal or quickly faded away. The success of such initiatives generally depends on their ability to mobilize significant resources, gain the credibility of key actors, and offer real added value compared to existing structures.

The experience of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum or that of the Group of Twenty (G20) shows that informal forums can play an important role in global governance, particularly in areas such as the economy or trade. However, these forums have generally functioned as complements to multilateral institutions rather than as direct competitors. The Board of Peace stands out for its ambition to tackle issues of security and conflict—areas traditionally reserved for institutions such as the UN or NATO.

When I look at the history of these parallel forums, I see a pattern: they either end up being absorbed by existing institutions or wither away due to a lack of legitimacy. Trump, with his flair for the dramatic and his ability to create structures centered around himself, may be able to give his Board of Peace considerable media visibility. But visibility does not create legitimacy, much less effectiveness. And what worries me is that this initiative could further divide the international community at a time when global challenges require more cooperation, not less.

Lessons from Past Failures

Several similar initiatives have failed in the past, often for reasons related to legitimacy, representation, and sustainability. Attempts to create parallel governance structures in conflict zones have often suffered from a lack of acceptance by local populations and regional actors. The example of the provisional administration of territories under international control has demonstrated the inherent difficulties of establishing external governance structures without significant local support.

The challenges facing the Board of Peace are particularly acute in the case of Gaza. The Strip’s history has been marked by experiences with international governance that have often failed to create stable and accepted structures. The experience of the Palestinian Authority, whose authority has been contested in Gaza, illustrates the difficulties of establishing representative governance in a context of deep political division. The Board of Peace will have to navigate these historical obstacles while striving to build its own legitimacy.

A Challenge to Existing Institutions

Trump’s initiative is part of a broader trend of questioning existing multilateral institutions. Criticism of the effectiveness of the UN and other international organizations has grown in recent years, fueled by major crises that have exposed the limitations of these structures. The war in Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the climate crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic have all highlighted the difficulties international institutions face in effectively responding to contemporary global challenges.

However, alternative reform proposals such as the Board of Peace raise the question of the nature of the desired reform. Is the goal to create more effective and representative structures, or is it to circumvent existing mechanisms in favor of a more transactional approach to international relations? The answer to this question will determine whether initiatives like Trump’s will help renew the multilateral system or contribute to its gradual disintegration.

What frightens me about this reevaluation is that it risks leading to an institutional vacuum rather than renewal. International institutions are certainly imperfect, often ineffective, and sometimes unjust. But they provide a framework, mechanisms, and rules that—even if imperfect—give structure to international relations. Replacing them with informal, personalized, and transactional structures means running the risk of a return to 19th-century diplomacy, based on power struggles among great powers. And it is the weakest who will pay the price for this step backward.

The Need for Institutional Reform

The challenges facing the contemporary multilateral system are real and require innovative responses. The crisis of legitimacy facing international institutions calls for reforms that make them more representative of 21st-century realities, more effective in their ability to respond to crises, and more equitable in their distribution of responsibilities. However, these reforms must be carried out collectively and inclusively, rather than through unilateral initiatives that risk further dividing the international community.

Proposals for UN reform have been circulating for years but have often been blocked by the divergent interests of member states. The veto mechanism in the Security Council, inadequate representation in the General Assembly, and the inefficiency of decision-making mechanisms have all been identified as obstacles to more effective global governance. The challenge for the international community is to strike the right balance between preserving the founding principles of multilateralism and making the necessary adjustments to contemporary realities.

A High-Stakes Diplomatic Experiment

Donald Trump’s Board of Peace initiative represents a bold—but also risky—diplomatic experiment. It proposes a model of international governance based on the centralization of power around a charismatic figure and on a transactional approach to international relations. This model stands in stark contrast to the principles of traditional multilateralism, which are based on common rules, representative institutions, and collective decision-making. The success or failure of this initiative will have significant implications for the future of global diplomacy.

The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the Board of Peace will succeed in attracting enough members to be viable, mobilizing the necessary resources for its operations, and gaining sufficient legitimacy to have a real impact on the conflicts it seeks to resolve. The reactions of the major powers—particularly China, Russia, and European countries—will be especially decisive. Without their participation, there is a high risk that the council will be perceived as a body dominated by U.S. allies and, consequently, incapable of playing a meaningful role in resolving global conflicts.

When I look at this initiative by Trump, I feel that mix of concern and fascination that I often experience when faced with his projects. On the one hand, it’s terrifying: he proposes turning peace into a market, alliances into transactions, and diplomacy into business. On the other hand, he deserves credit for challenging structures that have clearly failed to prevent conflicts. The question is not whether Trump is right or wrong on the merits, but whether his initiative will accelerate the necessary transformation of the international system or hasten its collapse. And perhaps that is the true nature of his audacity: he is forcing the world to choose between an untenable status quo and uncertain change.