Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ is really a Board of War

DONALD Trump launched his ‘Board of Peace’ at Davos 2026, with much fanfare, promising to “end decades of suffering, stop generations of hatred and bloodshed”. Initially intended to rebuild Gaza, its mission now appears much broader, marking critical global shifts and raising serious questions about what peace means at the global level.

Through his ‘Board of Peace’, Trump aims to redefine peace by promoting a ‘peace through strength’ approach.

The idea of peace as positive social relationships built on equality and justice has been cast aside. Instead, it is viewed as a form of macro-security enforced by the most powerful through threats and coercion.

This version of peace resembles the international relations of decades past, where stability was thought to be maintained through balancing the power of nations. Security was guaranteed by fear rather than rules or ideas of mutually beneficial cooperation. Arguably, the concept of a balance of power has eroded over the past few decades through multilateral institutions such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank, which have gained increasing global power.

Additionally, grassroots movements such as those advocating for LGBTQ+ rights and climate-change activism have often emerged from the margins, cutting across traditional forms of political power. These changes Trump and his cronies despise.

In Trump’s view, a return to power politics is necessary, with the US, as the biggest kid on the block, acting as the world’s self-interested policeman.

Inauguration of the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum 2026 in Davos. Photo: WEF / Flickr / CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 

Peace is transactional or even extractive, with secondary gains for the US, such as oil or rare-earth minerals, flowing from the guarantee of security.

The ‘Board of Peace’ no doubt has been established to further this warped understanding. 

No-one really knows what it will ultimately do. But the trajectory of US foreign policy suggests it will operate more as a ‘Board of War’, legitimising global interventions mainly dictated by Trump, its executive chair.

It would not be surprising if Greenland is the first item on the agenda, with the board endorsing annexation to “promote” global peace. Iran and Cuba might be next.

Only one African country, Morocco, has been invited to join. This reflects Trump’s racist dismissal of African states as ‘shithole’ nations.

But from a more sinister perspective, Africa, rich in resources and riddled with conflict, also seems ripe for the ‘peace through strength’ approach. It could be awkward to be singled out for a Trump ‘peace intervention’ while sitting on the board.

The ‘Board of Peace’ also embodies Trump’s belief that existing global institutions fail to serve US interests and alternative structures are needed. Following his withdrawal from various international organisations, the proposed board aims to replace global bodies such as the UN. It will define its own agenda and legitimacy, centred around Trump, who is the chairman for life with veto power.

In Trump’s words at the launch, the board will “do pretty much whatever we want to do”.

All this reinforces the claim by Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, that “the rules-based order is fading”.

The only way out of this, according to Carney, is that “middle powers must act together” in various forms of cooperation, underpinned by values such as respect for human rights, sustainable development and sovereignty.

This speech has been seen as a game-changer, particularly in liberal circles. Carney’s approach, however, misses a fundamental point.

While global institutions have provided a framework for a rules-based world, they have primarily benefited Western nations.

The alarm among Western politicians over Trump’s comments about Greenland reflects a delayed recognition of the power plays that developing nations have faced from the US and Europe for decades.

Western countries have often used the rules-based order to justify toppling governments in the name of democratic peace. They did little to stop the genocide in Gaza.

The International Criminal Court has primarily indicted African leaders, while the likes of Netanyahu remain largely protected. The UN Security Council frequently blocks resolutions that run counter to its interests.

If Carney and his coalition of ‘middle powers’ are serious about ushering in a new era, the normative aspect of their call for collective action requires serious scrutiny.

A radical rethink of the international order is not only overdue but also offers new opportunities.

For example, if the US is no longer interested in cooperating globally, bodies such as the Security Council could be dismantled and replaced with more equitable structures and power in global governance distributed more evenly. Such actions would create a different set of global levers and international players.

The danger right now, however, is that countries such as Canada and the UK – and, of course, the European Union – may become overly focused on the drive to reforge Western alliances while missing the bigger picture.

Nations around the world, including Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Mexico, South Africa, India, and Brazil, are expanding their regional influence alongside the ambitions of China and Russia.

Trump’s national-interest-first approach could encourage other nations to waver in their commitments to the international order and even resort to force to resolve disputes. It is no surprise that some countries often critiqued for their human rights records eagerly joined Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’, despite the $1 billion joining fee.

They will be happy to be lackeys in the absence of anything else, or out of fear that their country might otherwise be next on Trump’s dinner table.

In this context, Carney’s ideas of ‘middle power’, Western-only alliances will do little to promote global stability.

Unless this new approach to partnerships is accompanied by genuine soul-searching about the biases, imbalances and gaps in international institutions, and is founded on renewed north-south cooperation, the world will merely replicate past mistakes.

If discussions on power are now the new norm, real change will only occur when global power dynamics are truly disrupted.

So, the discussion of new alliances should embrace rapidly developing nations and the inclusion and empowerment of the weakest.

This approach recognises that sustainable peace is built on participation and embedded in equality and shared access to power – it is not based on threats. Such broader devolution of power is exactly what Trump, as global bully boy, fears most.

Then again, maybe the ‘Board of Peace’ is just a classic Trump billion-dollar grift, to create a new ‘Board of Peace’ Peace Prize –with only one potential winner.

.  .  .

Originally published by Brandon Hamber in the The Irish News, 28 January 2026

Also published in The Geopolitical Economist, here

 

War in Ukraine: Drifting toward a tipping point

I’ve refrained from commenting on Ukraine on Facebook until now. There are enough brilliant experts on and in the region, not to mention lots of mainly male armchair generals and experts (and few male and female politicians in Northern Ireland) getting very excited on social media about tanks and guns they will never have to hold. So who needs more commentary, huh? So, I have a quick thought on conflict in general, which I have spent a fair bit of my life studying, teaching, and practically engaging with.

“Map of Ukraine political simple city Kiew”
by Sven Teschke  CC BY-SA 3.0.

The current moment shows all the hallmarks of conflict escalation drifting toward a tipping point. I know it is not rocket science, but all conflicts have them (often multiple times) and it is vital as there comes a moment in conflicts where it becomes impossible in the short term to roll back. People think they know when this point is (because it is not rocket science!), but many protracted wars have shown most fail to spot it or an unanticipated event happens and things tip, creating an even worse catastrophe than the present.

We see classic escalation features: increasing attacks on civilians (by the Russians); constant reference to historical contexts and narratives; arms build-up by multiple players; hardening rhetoric; polarization spouted by the public, not just politicians; the public (outside the country) talking “bravely” of war and why it is needed; the silencing of anyone who utters the word peace or compromise, belittling such approaches (often using the language of masculinity); multiple alliances that are material and historical; rapid shifts in alliances (not just in the region but elsewhere, for you conflict nerds Russia changing position recently on Yemen, for example); everyone over-estimating their war capabilities and miscalculating those of their enemy on all sides; and emotions being praised before reason in the media and by us all.

I do not know where this will go, but routes to de-escalation must be found urgently. I wish I had a magic bullet for this but don’t. However, it is crucial to think about routes to de-escalation as much as we are thinking about other issues like defence. This is hard when seeing the breaching of international law and human rights violations by Russia; it’s emotive. However, this is where we are right now…drifting fast…just an observation.

Read this article on Medium

BBC Thought for the Day

Listen to the Audio File

At the moment the world seems gripped by conflict in Syria, Ukraine, Iraq and the devastating siege of Gaza.

Perhaps because of the overwhelming nature of these events – I recently found myself thinking about something that is both literally and figuratively miles away…

…Remember, Felix Baumgartner free-falling from space last year?

What I found remarkable about him was his attitude. Despite the seeming madness of his space dive, he claims as he jumped all he could think of was returning home to his family alive.

Family is obviously one of the most vital parts of all our lives.

In Gaza the most heart-breaking thing has been to see families torn apart and grieving due to the violence inflicted on their society.

The sad thing is that on the other side there are no doubt families who think occupation and aggression is necessary to protect their loved ones.

Violence against others is often justified as a proactive step to protecting family and community.

Of course, we all care for our relatives. But the idea of kinship and connection can be twisted, especially by those with power.

By evoking concepts like family and community as core social principles, politicians often allow us to feel good about doing self-centred things like supporting welfare cuts if they do not directly affect us…

…or in the extreme case to justify waging war on others.

Returning to Felix standing outside his diminutive space capsule with the world below, one cannot but be struck by how tiny our planet is in the vastness of space.

As he says: “Sometimes you have to go up really high to understand how small you are.”

You would think this realisation would make us as a species want to be closer, to cooperate more and work together.

Yet, perversely, it seems the more we are faced with the expanse of the universe and its diversity, the more we take refuge in our families and communities.

This might in the short term make each of us feel more secure, but paradoxically the more we retreat from those we see as ‘the other’ the more we end up fearing them…and fear is the root of many conflicts.

Safety is ensured – as counter intuitive as it sounds – when we move beyond the boundaries of the small worlds we all inhabit.

Genuine security for those we love can only be achieved when we connect with and know others…and that – even if it does not immediately fix all the world wide conflicts – is a small step we all can take each day.

BBC Radio Ulster
Thought for the Day by Brandon Hamber

26 August 2014

Environmentalism, war and diet coke

Unrestricted development and pollution are the best known ways of destroying the environment. However, war is also a major contributing factor that has, at least to a degree, been ignored in the debate so far. War wipes out lives and livelihoods through destroying farmland, resources, and environments necessary to sustain life, such as food, forests and water sources.

Conflicts over resources not only spur wars on but also lead to the plundering of other resources to fund the war machine. Then, immediately after wars, countries can be so desperate to rebuild their economies that they sanction unchecked development and the wanton mining of natural resources.

There are also the direct impacts of war. The first Gulf War resulted in an estimated 11-million barrels of oil being intentionally released into the Arabian Gulf. This destroyed coral reefs and more than 15 000 birds, besides other forms of marine life, and habitats. Did you know that, in Vietnam, biodiversity is still recovering from the use of Agent Orange over 30 years ago?

Credit Tommaso.sansone91 / CC0

Even more disturbing is that it is also now clear that global warming will create further wars, leading to a vicious circle of environmental destruction. Two of the European Union's senior policy advisers, Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, outlined warnings to this effect in a recent policy paper. In the document, they warn of mass migration and north-south conflicts as perceived injustice between those causing global warming and those affected increase, as well as wars over competition for water, energy and other natural resources.

An 'optimistic' view is that climate change will not cause such instabilities but be a 'multiplier, that is, it will make bad situations worse, such as destabilising unstable States and fuelling existing conflicts, leading to local and global insecurity. What is scary is that this process is already under way. According to Solana and Ferrero-Waldner, every humanitarian crisis the United Nations dealt with in 2007 was connected to climate change in some way.

This paints a depressing picture. It makes you wonder why we have been in a state of denial about the environment for so long.

One reason for this, argues George Marshall, on his blog, 'Climate Change Denial', is that environmental issues are painted as global and feel beyond reach. I guess even talking about war and its link to environmental catastrophe has this effect. It calls on us all to stop wars, but this can have the opposite effect. That is, ordinary citizens feel powerless to stop war and so do not worry about its worldwide impact.

Marshall feels we need to drop language like 'save the planet' because it allows us to create distance between ourselves and difficult issues. 'Save the planet' means we talk of 'climate', not 'weather'; polar bears, not hedgehogs; African children, not our own, writes Marshall. 'The planet' locates the problem miles away from your community and somewhere in the solar system, and ‘save' speaks to abstinence and sacrifice. As humans, we naturally shy away from them.

As an antidote to this, Marshall feels we should replace phrases like 'low carbon emissions' with 'light living' and other positive messages, such as 'Live light because it will make you feel complete and free'.

Marshall acknowledges that this sounds like ad-speak (and a Diet Coke ad, in my opinion), but he feels it is a lot better than stock phrases like ‘save the planet', and will result in more people taking action.

I agree with Marshall that positive messages and localising the impact of environmental damage are needed. There is something off-putting about tired slogans like ‘save the rhino' or whatever celebrity animal has hit the endangered list in the last six months. However, my worry is that human denial is even more resistant than Marshall thinks. There is a tendency to only react when a tsunami rushes through your own backyard, and then it is too late.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 28 May 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Chaos in Ivory Coast: Roots and Consequences

Dan Chirot sent me through a piece he recently wrote on the Ivory Coast. Thought I would post it; it is interesting and an area that seems to get little attention. It begins: "Back in the fall of 2002, an attempted military coup had failed in Ivory Coast. But — instead of really giving up — the mostly northern army officers retreated and took control of the northern half of the country, while the government held on to the south. The south has most of the country’s wealth, including its lucrative cocoa and coffee plantations, as well as the port of Abidjan which — far beyond Ivory Coast — serves much of French-speaking West Africa. The French, with about 5,000 soldiers there, managed to stop the renewed government offensive in November 2004, which actually had no chance of succeeding. Unexpectedly, though, the Ivorian government ordered the French military base in Bouake — the rebel capital — to be bombed."

Cost of War

Check out this interesting site called the Cost of War...rather revealing.

A global movement of poets

Poets Against the War is a global movement of poets that erupted in February, 2003, to protest the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration. Within a few weeks, the movement ballooned into an international phenomenon, with over 13,000 poets submitting their poetry to the web site to protest the war.

Transcript: Bill Moyers Interviews Doris Lessing

Doris Lessing, on war and the novel, an interview, click here.