On January 22 , US President Donald J. Trump formally ratified the Charter of the Board of Peace in Switzerland. Contrary to the UNSC Resolution 2803, which endorsed Trump’s Comprehensive Plan for Gaza reconstruction and approved the creation of the Board of Peace (BoP), its charter focuses on a global agenda to settle wars, omitting direct reference to the Palestinian territories, while also remaining devoid of United Nations approval. Nonetheless, 22 countries, including Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Pakistan and Indonesia, are amongst the BoPs founding members. Notable absentees include the UK, France, China, Germany and Canada.
In unveiling the second phase of his peace plan for Gaza, Trump presented a detailed four-tier governance structure. Palestinians are notably absent from the top three tiers, with representation only in a “technocratic committee” focused on municipal affairs.
Before delving further into the BoP, let us examine UNSC Resolution 2803. Passed without opposition but abstention from China and Russia, the resolution authorizes its establishment “as a transitional administration with international legal personality that will set the framework, and coordinate funding for, the redevelopment of Gaza pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, and in a manner consistent with relevant international legal principles.” Hence, the BoP is and ought to be a body under the UNSC and not a private board, a corporation, or an investment company. The UNSC conceived the BoP as a transitional administration until a reformed Palestinian Authority takes over the administration of Gaza. However, Resolution 2803 neither stipulates specifics of the BoP, nor its leadership, nor the scope of his authority. So, the BoP Charter unveiled in Davos is not referenced in the UN resolution. The board’s organogram and power structure is radical to the extent of being controversial.
The charter identifies three main organs for its administration: member states, the executive board and the chairman. The BoP consists of member states but its executive board comprises individuals serving in their personal capacity, not as representatives of their governments, companies or institutions, except for the president of the World Bank.
The BoP Charter’s unique feature is empowering Trump to designate a successor without approval from member states, hence the entity being his sole proprietorship. Besides, it also does not condition the BoP chairmanship with the individual being a head of state as Trump can nominate his successor, who can be a private citizen.
However, Article 2.2 mandates that each member state be represented by its head of state or government. Only presidents/prime ministers can represent their states. This means the next US president, regardless of party, serves under Trump’s authority as chairman. If unwilling, the United States could withdraw immediately by providing written notice to the chairman. Contrary to the UN and multilateral norm so far, Article 8 grants the chairman (Trump) the authority to refuse modifications, even unanimous approval by member states while also having the sole power to interpret the charter and to dissolve the BoP when considered necessary or appropriate.
The 47th US president heads the executive council, predominantly staffed with US-based Israel-friendly figures, including his son-in-law and a prominent billionaire, notably lacking representation from the Muslim world.
The charter also provides the sitting US president the authority to select members of the executive board with the vague criteria of them being “leaders of global stature.” No approval from the BoP member states is conditioned. Tony Blair, former British premier, has been handpicked as the executive board’s head for a two-year term by the US president. The BoP’s executive body of unelected individuals is not accountable to the board’s member states but the chairman.
Though the BoP is being classified as an executive agreement under the foreign affairs power of the White House, its role as an international body requires congressional sanction.
Of 193 member states of the UN, the BoP chairman invited only 62 and won acceptance from 25 so far. The member states so far include influential, wealthy and militarily powerful Muslim majority states. While the legal status of BoP after unveiling of its charter remains murky, the embrace by the leading Muslim countries signifies a geopolitical tactic to keep the Palestine issue on Trump’s agenda and restrict Israel’s excessive hand through diplomatic means. Tel Aviv is neither perturbed nor enthusiastic as its military continues to attack Palestinians in refugee camps in utter disregard for the ceasefire plan.
Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia will not be joining the Abraham Accords.
The Saudi foreign ministry said that the signing of the document showed the kingdom’s “commitment to supporting the mission of the Board of Peace as a transitional administration to end the conflict in the Gaza strip, as adopted by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803.” Riyadh links the joining of the accords to the establishment of an independent state of Palestine.
“Joining the BoP does not mean Pakistan will be part of the Abraham Accords. Pakistan will not join the Abraham Accords. Joining BoP does NOT mean Pakistan has joined the ISF,” said Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman.
UN Secretary General António Guterres emphasizes the centrality of the UNSC in matters pertaining to peace. “Global problems will not be solved by one power calling the shots. Nor will they be solved by two powers carving the world into rival spheres of influence.”
While Washington engineers the BoP, it has withdrawn funding to the tune of $2 billion besides withdrawing from various UN organizations. “Either all Member States honour their obligations to pay in full and on time – or Member States must fundamentally overhaul our financial rules to prevent an imminent financial collapse,” Guterres warns. Regardless of the ambiguity of the BoP’s status, its questionable structure and Israeli violations of the ceasefire, the Muslim countries joining the body express their willingness to go the extra mile for peace in the Middle East. They have entrusted faith in Trump’s ambition is to resolve the most complex and acrimonious dispute. To his detriment, though, the far-right Israeli leadership remains pugnacious and intransigent. The strategic patience of influential Muslim members of the BoP is far from infinite.
