By Musab Yousufi
The reported revival of a Donald Trump backed “Peace Board” has reopened an old but unresolved debate in global politics: is there a genuine need for alternative peace mechanisms outside the United Nations, or do such initiatives undermine the very architecture of international peace and security carefully built since 1945? The question is not merely institutional; it goes to the heart of how power, legitimacy, and conflict resolution operate in a rapidly splitting world order.
Is There a Need for a Peace Board?
Proponents argue that a peace board is necessary precisely because existing multilateral institutions have failed to deliver timely and effective conflict resolution. From Palestine to Syria, Yemen to Ukraine, UN-led processes have often stalled due to veto politics, great-power rivalry, and bureaucratic inertia. In this view, a smaller, interest-driven peace board backed by U.S. leverage could act more decisively, bypass procedural paralysis, and deliver pragmatic settlements.
Critics, however, see the need as artificial. They argue that peace does not suffer from a lack of forums but from a lack of political will particularly among powerful states. Creating parallel structures may address symptoms temporarily but risks eroding the legitimacy of universal institutions meant to protect weaker states.
Can the Board Address the Conflicts It Was Formed For?
Supporters claim the board is designed to focus on political normalization, economic incentives, and security cooperation especially in the Middle East. Drawing inspiration from the Abraham Accords, the initiative emphasizes state-to-state engagement rather than protracted ideological disputes. Yet this very design raises concerns: conflicts rooted in occupation, sovereignty, and self-determination most notably Palestine cannot be resolved through economic normalization alone. Without enforceable commitments, international legality, and inclusive representation, the board risks addressing only surface-level stability while deeper injustices remain unresolved.
A Challenge to the United Nations?
The emergence of a U.S. backed peace board is widely seen as a political challenge to the UN peace architecture. While not a formal disqualification of UN forums, it effectively sidelines them by shifting diplomatic gravity elsewhere. This creates an uncomfortable reality for UN leadership: peace initiatives led by major powers can overshadow multilateral mechanisms, reducing the UN to a reactive or ceremonial role. Such developments reinforce the perception that the UN is strong in rhetoric but weak in enforcement particularly when powerful states choose unilateral or minilateral pathways.
Is It a Wise Decision in the Presence of the UN?
From a U.S. strategic perspective, establishing a peace board aligns with Washington’s preference for results-oriented diplomacy and control over outcomes. However, from a global governance standpoint, the decision is problematic. It signals declining confidence in collective security and sets a precedent where powerful states create alternative institutions whenever multilateral ones become inconvenient. This trend risks normalizing fragmentation in global peace efforts, making conflict resolution contingent on power alignment rather than international law.
Middle Eastern Participation and Its Implications
Reports suggest that nine Middle Eastern countries have aligned themselves with the initiative, reportedly including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. While the depth of participation varies, their motivation is broadly strategic: security guarantees, economic integration, access to U.S. markets and technology, and alignment with Washington’s regional vision. For many of these states, joining the board is less about ideology and more about survival in a volatile regional environment. Normalization offers insulation against isolation and opens doors to investment and defense cooperation.
Does This Help Palestine or Marginalize It?
The central question remains whether such a board meaningfully advances the Palestinian cause. Experience suggests skepticism. While supporters argue that broader Arab-Israeli engagement could eventually create space for negotiations, critics counter that normalization without conditions weakens Palestinian leverage. Even if a majority of participating states are Muslim majority countries, their involvement may remain largely symbolic unless Palestinian statehood, borders, and rights are placed at the core of the agenda. Otherwise, the initiative risks becoming a formality peace in name, not in substance.
The Future of Global Politics and the UN
Looking ahead, global politics appears to be moving toward minilateralism, where small, power-driven groupings overshadow universal institutions. The UN may increasingly appear ceremonial issuing statements while real decisions are made elsewhere. Yet declaring the UN obsolete would be premature. History shows that multilateral institutions weaken and recover in cycles.
The UN’s failure to restrain powerful states or protect weaker ones is undeniable. Still, no alternative offers the same global legitimacy. Whether this phase leads to the UN’s marginalization or its eventual reform will depend on whether middle and small powers can reclaim multilateralism as a shared interest rather than a moral slogan.
Conclusion
Trump’s peace board reflects a broader shift in world politics from rules to power. It may produce short-term diplomatic breakthroughs, but at the cost of undermining inclusive global governance. The real test will be whether it delivers justice alongside stability. Without that balance, it risks joining a long list of initiatives that promised peace but settled for convenience.
(The author is Associate Professor and Head of the Department of International Relations at Riphah International University Islamabad.)
