Why in the news?

The United States has launched a new Board of Peace initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos, projecting it as a global peace-making body that could rival or even replace the United Nations in the long term.The move is significant because many traditional U.S. allies declined participation, revealing skepticism about its mandate and legitimacy.

What is the Board of Peace?

Origin and Initial Mandate

1. Conceptualisation: Conceived by Donald Trump as part of the second phase of a U.S.-brokered 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan announced in September.
2. Original Scope: Oversight of demilitarisation, reconstruction, and governance of the Gaza Strip, following devastation caused by Israel’s two-year war.
3. International Backing: Received formal legitimacy when the United Nations Security Council endorsed the ceasefire plan in November.

Mandate Expansion and Charter Design

1. Mandate Expansion: Expanded from a Gaza-specific reconstruction body to a global institution addressing conflicts worldwide.
2. Charter Language: Defines the Board as an “international organization” promoting stability, peace, and governance in areas affected or threatened by conflict.
3. Notable Omission: The draft charter circulated with invitations does not reference Gaza, despite Gaza being the original trigger.

Leadership and Governance Structure

1. Chairmanship: Trump designated as indefinite chairman, potentially extending beyond his second presidential term.
2. Institutional Hierarchy: Board positioned above a Founding Executive Board.
3. Executive Composition: Includes Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, andTony Blair, indicating executive-driven rather than multilateral governance.

Membership Model and Access Rules

1. Term Structure: Standard membership for three-year terms.
2. Permanent Seats: Available upon payment of USD 1 billion to a peace-building fund.
3. Governance Implication: Introduces a financial criterion for institutional permanence, distinct from norm-based multilateral systems.

Why is participation in the Board of Peace contested?

1. Limited Attendance: Heads of state or senior officials from only 19 countries, plus the U.S., were physically present.
2. Ally Skepticism: Several close U.S. allies opted out due to uncertainty over mandate, authority, and overlap with existing institutions.
3. Legislative Constraints: Some countries indicated interest but require parliamentary approval before formal participation.

How does the Board of Peace relate to the United Nations?

1. Institutional Overlap: The Board’s functions closely resemble UN peacekeeping and mediation roles.
2. U.S. Positioning: The President indicated cooperation with the UN while simultaneously questioning its effectiveness.
3. Long-term Implication: The Board was described as potentially making the UN obsolete, signaling a challenge to the post-1945 multilateral order.

What role does the Gaza conflict play in this initiative?

1. Ceasefire Focus: The Board was presented as a mechanism to manage and sustain ceasefires, with Gaza cited as a test case.
2. Border Opening: Announcement that the Rafah crossing would reopen in both directions after Israeli approval.
3. Governance Proposal: Oversight of Gaza by a Palestinian committee under U.S. supervision was mentioned as part of post-conflict planning.

How have major global powers responded?

1. Russia’s Position: Indicated ongoing consultations and refrained from immediate commitment.
2. Engagement with Palestine: Russia hosted Palestinian leadership, highlighting parallel diplomatic tracks.
3. Global Fragmentation: Divergent responses reflect declining consensus on U.S.-led peace initiatives.

Conclusion

The launch of the Board of Peace reflects dissatisfaction with existing global peace mechanisms and highlights the limits of unilateral institution-building. The gap between claimed support and actual participation raises questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness, even as ongoing conflicts like Gaza underline the urgency of peace efforts.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2024] Terrorism has become a significant threat to global peace and security’. Evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its associated bodies in addressing and mitigating this threat at the international level.

Linkage: The question tests how far UN bodies like the Security Council and its counter-terrorism mechanisms have been effective in maintaining global peace and security. The Board of Peace has been launched because existing UN mechanisms are seen as slow and ineffective.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now