When Donald Trump floated the idea of a “Board of Peace,” the reaction from much of the political and media class was predictably dismissive. Some framed it as vague branding, others as naïve at best or cynical at worst. Yet beneath the reflexive scepticism lies a question worth asking in good faith. What is this proposal actually trying to do, and why does it provoke such hostility before it has even been defined?
Trump’s foreign policy record complicates the easy caricatures. Unlike many recent presidents, he presided over a period without major new US-initiated wars, prioritised negotiation over escalation, and treated diplomacy as transactional rather than ideological. Against that backdrop, the idea of a standing body designed to de-escalate conflicts deserves closer examination, even from critics.
What Exactly is the Board of Peace Supposed to Be?
Details about the Board of Peace remain limited, but that is not unusual for early-stage policy concepts. The broad outline appears to be a permanent advisory or mediation body, composed of experienced diplomats, military figures, and geopolitical negotiators, tasked with identifying flashpoints before they erupt into full-scale conflict.
Unlike the United Nations, which is often paralysed by internal politics and veto structures, a Trump-aligned Board of Peace would likely operate with speed, flexibility, and direct executive influence. Rather than issuing resolutions or moral condemnations, its function would be pragmatic. It would focus on incentives, pressure points, and deal-making.
But does such a body risk redundancy? Well, supporters counter that redundancy might be precisely the point. Existing international institutions have failed repeatedly to prevent wars that were widely anticipated. A parallel mechanism, unburdened by multilateral bureaucracy, could offer an alternative path.
Trump’s Record on Conflict Avoidance
Any assessment of the Board of Peace must consider Trump’s actual record. During his presidency, the US did not enter a new major war. He pursued direct talks with adversaries long considered untouchable, including North Korea, while pressuring NATO allies to take greater responsibility for their own defence.
Trump’s approach was often criticised as erratic, yet it produced results that orthodox diplomacy had failed to deliver. The Abraham Accords, for example, reshaped Middle Eastern relations through economic incentives rather than endless peace conferences. They reflected a worldview in which stability emerges from aligned interests, not abstract commitments to global norms.
Seen through that lens, the Board of Peace looks less like an idealistic project and more like an institutionalisation of Trump’s existing instincts. It would formalise a deal-first approach to global security.
Early International Reactions
So far, international responses to Trump’s proposed Board of Peace have been limited but revealing. In Europe, Hungary and Bulgaria are the only countries that have publicly indicated their willingness to join or support the initiative in its current form. Both governments have previously aligned themselves with Trump’s scepticism toward large multilateral institutions and have favoured state-centric, interest-based diplomacy.
Elsewhere in Europe, reactions have been more cautious. Germany and Italy have explicitly stated that they cannot participate in the Board of Peace as currently envisioned. Their leaders have cited concerns over its structure, mandate, and relationship with existing international frameworks, particularly NATO and the United Nations. The objections appear procedural rather than outright hostile, but they underscore broader unease within Western Europe about parallel diplomatic bodies operating outside established norms.
Other Western governments have so far withheld formal positions, neither endorsing nor rejecting the proposal outright. Outside Europe, no countries have officially joined, but neither Russia nor China has issued a public condemnation, suggesting a wait-and-see approach rather than immediate dismissal.
At this stage, the pattern is clear. Governments already critical of the post-Cold War diplomatic architecture are more open to the idea, while those invested in maintaining existing institutions remain sceptical. Whether that balance shifts will depend less on rhetoric and more on whether the Board of Peace develops into something concrete.
Why the Board of Peace Threatens the Establishment
Opposing the Board of Peace says as much about the current foreign policy establishment as it does about Trump. For decades, Western diplomacy has operated on a model that rewards process over outcomes. Conferences are held, statements are issued, and conflicts continue largely unchanged.
A Trump-backed body that prioritises results would threaten entrenched interests. Defence contractors, permanent diplomatic bureaucracies, and international organisations all benefit from a system in which crises are managed rather than resolved. A mechanism that aims to defuse tensions early undermines that equilibrium.
There is also ideological resistance. Trump’s rejection of moralistic foreign policy language unsettles those who believe international legitimacy flows from institutions rather than power. A Board of Peace rooted in negotiation and leverage challenges that assumption.
So, Could It Actually Work?
Sceptics are right to ask how such a board would function in practice. Would it have authority or merely advisory influence? Would it operate transparently, or behind closed doors? Could it avoid becoming another symbolic body with no teeth?
These are legitimate questions, but they are not reasons for outright dismissal. In fact, they point to the importance of design. A Board of Peace that combines intelligence assessments, economic tools, and diplomatic outreach could intervene earlier than traditional channels allow.
Examples already exist in less formal forms. Back-channel diplomacy, special envoys, and quiet mediation have often succeeded where public negotiations failed. The Board of Peace could consolidate these tools into a coherent framework, backed by presidential authority.
A Brand New Peace Philosophy
At its core, the Board of Peace represents a philosophical shift. It treats peace not as an aspirational moral state, but as a strategic outcome that must be actively managed. This aligns with a realist tradition that recognises the limits of international law and the persistence of national interest.
Rather than pretending all conflicts stem from misunderstanding, this approach accepts that rival powers act rationally according to incentives. Peace, in this view, is achieved by reshaping those incentives, not by lecturing adversaries.
That philosophy will always attract criticism from those who prefer symbolic gestures. Yet history suggests that durable peace is more often forged through uncomfortable compromises than idealistic declarations.
Final Thought
The Board of Peace may ultimately prove flawed, or it may never move beyond concept. But dismissing it outright reflects a deeper unwillingness to question a foreign policy consensus that has delivered endless instability. Trump’s proposal asks whether peace can be pursued with the same seriousness and creativity as war. In a world sliding toward permanent conflict, that question alone deserves a hearing.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: World News