In a thought-provoking commentary published on February 10, 2026, the European Policy Centre (EPC) warns that President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” initiative is less about addressing the humanitarian and political challenges in Gaza, and more about reshaping the global governance architecture in a way that could marginalize the United Nations.
At face value, Trump’s Board of Peace emerged as part of a controversial U.S. plan to manage post-conflict reconstruction and governance in Gaza after the 2023–2025 war and subsequent fragile ceasefire arrangements.
But according to the EPC analysis, this forum signals something far deeper and potentially more destabilizing: the normalization of a model in which international crises are governed outside the established multilateral legal framework embodied by the UN.
While discussions about reconstruction and stabilization are urgent, the timing and structure of the Board — coming as the UN itself grapples with financial fragility and unpaid dues — suggests a deliberate effort to sidestep the Convention system that has underpinned international peacebuilding for decades.
Critics argue that what makes this development truly consequential isn’t merely the Board’s activities in Gaza, but the precedent it sets: a world where peace processes and crisis management may increasingly take place in closed, informal settings controlled by powerful states and wealthy contributors rather than through inclusive, rules-based institutions.
As the EPC commentary notes, a weakened UN does not collapse in dramatic fashion — it simply becomes “a lesser option,” sidelined by newer bodies that claim efficiency and effectiveness precisely because they operate outside the constraints of universal representation and international law.
This debate carries real geopolitical implications. Supporters of the Board argue that a fresh multilateral forum could streamline decision-making and avoid the gridlock often associated with UN diplomacy.
Yet opponents — especially in Europe and among like-minded democracies — see the Board’s emergence as a potential threat to the post-World War II order, which has historically anchored collective security and cooperative conflict resolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment