Could Trump’s bid to become peacemaker-in-chief sideline the struggling UN?

“Together, we are positioned to end decades of suffering, stop generations of hatred and bloodshed, and establish a beautiful, eternal and glorious peace for that region and for the entire region of the world.”

That was the soaring promise of US President Donald Trump as he inaugurated the new Peace Board on the stage of the Davos Economic Forum this week.

The world, where there is so much pain and strife, badly wants to believe him.

But for many observers and officials in capitals around the world, it is evidence of Trump’s effort to dismantle the post-war international architecture and replace it with new institutions under his sway.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned harshly on social media: “We will not let anyone play with us.”

But there was enthusiastic praise from Viktor Orban, Trump’s biggest supporter in Europe: “If it’s Trump, then peace.”

What exactly will this Board, constantly chaired by Trump, do? Could this really be a bid to build a UN mini-me?

The idea, which emerged from last year’s US-led efforts to end the war in Gaza and was approved by a UN Security Council resolution, now has a much bigger, much grander, more global claim. And it revolves around the president.

According to leaked details of the draft charter, he is chairman of the Board for life, even if he leaves office. Its powers under this statute will be very broad: the power to invite or not invite member states; create or dissolve subsidiaries; and the power to appoint his successor should he decide to resign or become incapacitated.

If any other country wanted to become a permanent member, the cost would be a staggering $1 billion (£740 million).

This latest bombshell comes amid an already dizzying month. In a few short weeks, the US capture of the Venezuelan leader, Trump’s threats and preparations for military action against Iran, and demands to seize Greenland have sent shockwaves across Europe and beyond.

19 countries from every corner of the compass, from Argentina to Azerbaijan, from former Soviet republics to Gulf kingdoms, attended the opening of the board in Davos. Many more are said to have “agreed to participate.”

“I love every single one of them in this group,” Trump grinned as he looked at the leaders and officials whose names currently appear on this House or in the layers of executive branches below it.

By now many more potential members have politely objected.

“This is about an agreement that raises much wider issues, and we also have concerns about President Putin being part of something that talks about peace,” British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said.

Trump said Russia was also on this ship, even though the message from Moscow was that they were still “advisory partners.”

“We disagree with the text in its current form,” Sweden replied.

“The proposal raises unanswered questions that require further dialogue with Washington,” was Norway’s diplomatic response.

Even a group of seven Muslim-majority countries, including six Arab countries as well as Turkey and Indonesia, have made clear they want a “just and lasting peace in Gaza,” including reconstruction of the shattered territory.

However, Gaza is not mentioned in the leaked details of the Board’s charter.

For some critics, including some countries reluctant to participate, it is a flattering project for a president who has made no secret of his determination to win the biggest prize of all: the Nobel Peace Prize, which President Obama won in 2009 at the beginning of his first term in the White House.

World leaders know there may be a price to pay for not joining this new club.

“I’ll put a 200% tax on their wine and champagne and she’ll join, but she doesn’t have to.” This was the president’s rebuke to French President Emmanuel Macron, threatening to use his weapon of choice.

Only Slovenia said the quiet part out loud. Prime Minister Robert Golob made his concern clear: it “dangerously interferes with the broader international order.”

Trump addressed this concern directly.

“Once this Board is fully formed, we can do almost anything we want to do, and we will do it together with the United Nations,” he explained to the packed room, hanging on his every word.

But he likes to keep the world guessing.

The day before, when asked by a Fox TV reporter if his board would replace the UN, he said: “Could be. The UN hasn’t been much help.”

He added: “I’m a big fan of the potential of the UN, but that potential has never been fully realized. The UN should have solved every one of the wars that I solved.”

Indeed, the 193-member UN has long since lost its role as the chief peacemaker.

When I interviewed Secretary-General António Guterres in October 2016, on the first day of his first term, just hours after the Security Council’s rare unanimous approval, he promised “an increase in diplomacy for peace.”

Over the past decade, the UN’s efforts have been hampered by a gridlocked Security Council, a growing number of looters and state sponsors of wars around the world, and the steady erosion of its own standing vis-à-vis the world’s most powerful players, including the United States.

“We should all welcome Mr. Trump’s activism to end wars,” says UN veteran Martin Griffiths, who believes this new effort is “clearly a reflection of the failure of the UN Security Council and the UN’s overall mandate.”

But the former Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator warned: “What we have learned over the last 80 years, from so many failures and blunders, we have learned the value of being involved, of being representative of not just Mr. Trump’s friends but of the global community.”

Guterres recently lamented that “there are those who believe that the law of power should be replaced by the law of power.”

In an interview with the BBC’s Today programme, when asked about Trump’s constant claim that he had ended eight wars, he replied matter-of-factly: “those are ceasefires”.

Some have already broken down.

The interim peace deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo soon fell apart, Cambodia and Thailand began lobbing accusations across borders and more, and India objected to Trump’s central role in ending the conflict with Pakistan.

But only Trump’s strong mediation could end the 12-day war between Iran and Israel.

His personal involvement finally led to a ceasefire in the devastating conflict in Gaza last October; this alleviated the suffering of both the Palestinians and the Israeli hostages. His decision to finally and fully focus on this disaster, partly in response to calls from his closest Arab allies and grieving Israeli families, has led him to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas to make a deal.

But even the Board’s first test, from the first phase of the agreement to ending the Gaza war, is daunting. Even now, as this new Executive Board slowly takes shape, it includes Netanyahu, who has vowed to stop the creation of a Palestinian state, and Arab leaders who insist that the only path to a sustainable peace must lead to Palestinian self-government and an end to Israeli occupation.

The other big war on the agenda of America and Europe is Ukraine. President Zelensky avoided being at the same table with Moscow and Minsk.

There are three layers beneath this Board, most of which focus on Gaza; a Board of Directors, a Gaza Executive Board and the National Committee for Gaza Administration.

They bring together a mix of Arab ministers, intelligence chiefs and Palestinian technocrats, as well as senior American officials and billionaires, respected former politicians and former UN ambassadors who know Gaza well.

Even some critics praise that the president has put on the table a centuries-old challenge of a different kind: the persistent demand to reform the UN’s postwar architecture, including a Security Council that is no longer compatible with the political map on which the major powers in each region are located. It’s definitely not fit for purpose.

“Perhaps a good unintended consequence of Trump’s actions is that these issues have been pushed to the top of the international agenda,” said Mark Malloch Brown, a former U.N. deputy secretary-general.

“We’re coming out of a period of extremely weak UN leadership, and I think this could be a call to action.”

Ironically, Trump’s attempt to lead the world towards peace comes at a time when discussions are gaining momentum in many capitals to replace Guterres, who will complete his second term at the end of this year.

The president, who had previously declared that he could end the Ukrainian war in one day, learned in his last year in power that peace was a long and dangerous process.

But today he hailed a Middle Eastern region where only “little fires” burn anymore. He promised that a solution in Ukraine “will happen very soon.”

And he reveled in his new role as so-called peacemaker.

“For this world,” he shouted.

Top image credit: Reuters

BBC In Depth It’s the home of the best analysis on website and app, with new perspectives that challenge assumptions and in-depth reporting on the biggest issues of the day. Emma Barnett and John Simpson present their selection of the most thought-provoking deep reads and analysis every Saturday. Sign up for the newsletter here