Trump’s Peace Board Sidelines the UN and Rewards Pakistan
Donald Trump’s announcement of a so called “Board of Peace” was presented as a bold diplomatic initiative, but it immediately raised a basic and uncomfortable question. Why create a new peace body at all when the world already has an established framework for conflict resolution? The answer lies less in global necessity and more in political preference, and the consequences of that choice are now becoming visible.
The global system for peacekeeping, mediation, and post conflict stabilisation already exists under the United Nations. For decades, the UN has handled ceasefire monitoring, peacekeeping mandates, humanitarian access, and political transition processes, however flawed and slow those mechanisms may be. Creating a parallel structure outside this system is not reform. It is a conscious decision to bypass multilateral legitimacy and accountability.
Trump’s approach to diplomacy has always favoured personal leverage over institutional process. The peace board fits that pattern perfectly. It is informal, flexible, and driven by political alignment rather than negotiated mandates. That flexibility may look efficient on paper, but in practice it strips away safeguards. Without UN resolutions, clear mandates, or international oversight, the credibility of the body rests entirely on who is invited and who stays away.
That is where the absence of major powers becomes significant. Most large and influential nations have chosen not to associate themselves closely with the initiative. This is not indifference. It is caution. Serious states understand that peace frameworks tied to individual political authority lack continuity and durability. They also understand that parallel bodies weaken existing institutions by creating confusion over legitimacy and authority.
The credibility problem becomes sharper with the inclusion of Pakistan. Pakistan’s record on terrorism related issues is not a matter of opinion or propaganda. It is a matter of repeated international scrutiny, documented networks, and long standing allegations of selective counterterrorism based on strategic convenience. Placing such a country on a peace focused board is not neutral diplomacy. It sends a signal that past conduct carries no consequences if present optics are useful.
This is where the irony becomes impossible to ignore. A peace initiative that sidelines the UN in the name of efficiency ends up lowering standards so dramatically that credibility itself becomes negotiable. By avoiding the UN framework, the board removes the filters that normally govern participation. What remains is a political club where inclusion is driven by balance and optics rather than trust and accountability.
Israel’s objection to Pakistan’s inclusion should be understood in this broader context. It is not merely a bilateral grievance. It is a reaction to a structure that allows states hostile to Israel, and accused of enabling violent non state actors elsewhere, to claim a role in shaping peace arrangements tied to Israeli security. Whether one agrees with Israel or not, the objection exposes the structural weakness of the board itself.
The larger danger lies beyond this single case. Parallel peace bodies erode the already fragile authority of international institutions. They encourage forum shopping, dilute norms, and make peace processes vulnerable to political change. When peace becomes a branding exercise rather than a governed process, outcomes become symbolic rather than substantive.
Sidelining the UN while rewarding controversial actors does not strengthen global peace efforts. It weakens them. Peace architecture cannot be built on convenience and contradiction. If legitimacy is optional and accountability is negotiable, then peace itself becomes temporary, conditional, and ultimately disposable.
