Peace for Sale?

Donald Trump's proposed Board of Peace for Gaza raises a troubling question — can stability be bought, or must it be earned through legitimacy and trust?

- ASIF ULLAH KHAN THE WRITER HAS WORKED IN SENIOR EDITORIAL POSITIONS FOR MANY RENOWNED INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS

Trump's proposed Board of Peace promises speed and control—but at the cost of legitimacy, inclusion, and the very idea of multilateralism

When Donald Trump unveiled his proposed “Board of Peace” to oversee Gaza's postwar transition and reconstruction, the question many diplomats quietly asked was not whether Gaza needs help — but what kind of help this board really represents. Framed as a bold alternative to what Trump calls the failures of the United Nations, the initiative promises decisive leadership, rapid funding, and fewer bureaucratic delays. Yet its structure — permanent seats reportedly priced at $1 billion after an initial three-year term, a chairman inherited with sweeping veto powers, and only hazy accountability mechanisms — has raised an unavoidable suspicion: is this peace-building, or diplomacy redesigned in the image of Trump's transactional business model?

That suspicion has only deepened as details of the board's charter have emerged. Rather than dispersing authority among participating states, the document concentrates power firmly in the hands of the chairman. Unlike the United Nations Security Council, where five permanent members share veto power based on post-World War II political realities, the Board of Peace appears to hinge permanence and influence almost entirely on financial contribution — and ultimate approval on Trump alone. Under the proposed rules, the chairman would not only exercise veto authority over decisions but also retain the power to remove member states, effectively making participation conditional on continued favour from the board's head.