Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” and The Future of Global Order

Donald Trump has proposed creating a new mechanism for managing global conflicts, the Board of Peace (BoP), rather than relying on the United Nations (UN) system.

About the Board of Peace (BoP)

• Perception of the United Nations: The United Nations (UN) is portrayed as an outdated, slow institution where decision-making is delayed and ineffective at preventing conflicts.
• Trump’s New Plan: Instead of reforming the UN system, Trump is proposing a parallel mechanism — the Board of Peace (BoP) — effectively creating a new structure outside existing multilateral institutions.
• Nature of the Board of Peace: The BoP is a select group of handpicked world leaders, intended to manage global conflicts through informal coordination rather than formal, rule-based processes.
• Concerns: The proposal raises concerns that conflict management may shift away from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), weakening its central role in maintaining international peace and security.
• Implications for the Global Order: If operationalised, the BoP could undermine the post-1945 multilateral architecture, replacing universal institutions with ad-hoc power groupings led by major powers.

The Origin: Gaza Crisis

• Triggering Event: The idea of the Board of Peace (BoP) emerged after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, which aimed to stabilise Gaza with a target horizon up to 2027.
• Purpose of the Resolution: The resolution was designed as a limited, issue-specific framework focused on post-conflict management and political stabilisation in Gaza, not as a global governance model.
• Voting Pattern and Geopolitical Signals: 
  • Major Powers: Russia and China abstained, signalling discomfort with the framework but avoiding a direct veto.
  • Global South and Islamic Countries: Many supported the resolution, viewing it as a pragmatic step to address humanitarian and security concerns in Gaza.
• The Strategic Twist: The Gaza-specific arrangement is now being projected as a general model for managing global conflicts through the proposed Board of Peace.

The Clash of Ideologies

• United Nations (UN) Model
  • Core Principle: All states are legally equal, regardless of size or power (Sovereign Equality).
  • Decision-Making Method: Policies emerge through negotiations, voting, and multilateral consent.
  • Analogy:  Like a legislature, every member has a voice and a vote, even if outcomes are slow and messy.
• Board of Peace (BoP) Model: 
  • Core Principle: Participation is by invitation, not by universal membership (Selective Membership).
  • Decision-Making Method: The United States leads, with Trump positioned as the Chair (Leader-Centric Control) 
  • Analogy:  Like a corporate structure where the chief executive sets direction, and others align
• Is the fear of dismantling global institutions real?: Based on Past Behaviour and Policy Signal, Trump’s record shows a consistent pattern of weakening, bypassing, or exiting multilateral institutions, indicating that current fears are not speculative but grounded in precedent.

Evidence of Institutional Breakdown

• World Trade Organisation (WTO): The U.S. blocked appointments to the Appellate Body, effectively paralysing the dispute settlement system.
• North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO):  Trump openly questioned why the U.S. should bear the cost of European security, undermining alliance solidarity and collective defence norms.
• Exit from UN Bodies: The U.S. withdrew from key agencies, including:
  • UNESCO, weakening cultural and educational cooperation.
  • World Health Organization (WHO), during a global health crisis, reducing coordination capacity.
• Greenland Episode: The attempt to purchase Greenland strained relations with Europe and signalled a transactional approach to sovereignty and alliances.
• Project 2025 Report (Heritage Foundation): Labels International Organisations as “woke” and inefficient, framing multilateralism as ideologically biased and ineffective.
  • The report advocates ad hoc coalitions of willing states rather than permanent, rule-based institutions, favouring flexible power groupings over universal bodies.

India’s Strategic Dilemma

• India’s Existing Foreign Policy Approach: India seeks to strengthen global institutions from within, especially by demanding a Permanent Seat in the UN Security Council, to reflect contemporary power realities. (Reformed Multilateralism)
• Core Problem: Trump’s approach is not to reform multilateral institutions, but to bypass or abandon them by creating parallel mechanisms, such as the Board of Peace (BoP).
• Strategic Implication for India: 
  • Erosion of Institutional Value: If the U.S. sidelines the UN, the practical relevance of a Permanent Seat diminishes, even if formally achieved.
  • Rising Risk in India’s Strategy: India’s long-term bet on incremental institutional reform becomes riskier as the world moves toward ad hoc, power-based coalitions rather than rule-based multilateralism.
• Policy Dilemma Ahead: India may need to hedge its multilateral strategy and continue pushing for reform while simultaneously strengthening minilateral and issue-based groupings to avoid being locked out of new power centres.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Diplomatic Dilemma for India

• Situation: India has reportedly received an invitation to join the proposed Board of Peace (BoP), placing it between principled multilateralism and emerging power coalitions.
• Option A: Join the BoP
  • Potential Gains: Secures a seat at the new high table, shaping conflict management, and preserves strategic proximity to the United States.
  • Potential Costs: May weaken India’s long-standing commitment to sovereign equality and UN-centric multilateralism. This could unsettle partners in the Global South who view selective clubs as exclusionary.
• Option B: Reject the BoP
  • Potential Gains: Signals consistency with UN-based global governance and institutional legitimacy, and protects India’s moral and diplomatic capital among developing countries.
  • Potential Costs: Risks of alienating the United States, potentially marginalising India on emerging decision-making platforms if power shifts outside the UN.
• Beyond orthodoxies: India needs to think beyond inherited orthodoxies. India must find new alliances.
  • The old policy of relying only on UN reform is no longer sufficient.

Conclusion

If Gaza is not stabilised by 2027, the Board of Peace (BoP) fails; if it succeeds, global power shifts from the United Nations in New York to Washington, marking a decisive change in global governance.

DOWNLOAD PDF