Democracy Without Borders has joined a growing chorus of voices objecting to the setup of Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, unveiled on January 22 at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Originally conceived by the UN Security Council as a temporary body linked to the Gaza ceasefire and reconstruction, the initiative has morphed into a standing international institution under centralized personal control of Trump and with an unclear role.
“According to its Charter, it is set up as a permanent organization to undertake peace-building functions in areas affected or threatened by conflict. The Charter grants extraordinary authority to a single individual—the inaugural Chairman, named as Donald Trump personally—who controls membership, the Executive Board and its composition, decision-making, institutional structure, and interpretation of the Charter, among other things. The Board of Peace represents an unacceptable and regressive shift toward centralized power and blurs the line between public and private affairs. It is not a viable model for international organization,” Democracy Without Borders stated.
The Board of Peace represents an unacceptable and regressive shift
The Charter ties privileges such as permanent membership to billion-dollar contributions and places executive and advisory roles in the hands of private associates selected by Trump. Speaking in Davos, former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark noted that this “is not a legitimate way to run international affairs,” describing the Board’s pay-for-access model as “bizarre.” Clark warned that any institution without universal membership would struggle to earn global trust and highlighted the broader risk of eroding respect for international law when powerful states rewrite the rules to suit themselves.
Democracy International, based in Cologne, issued an equally blunt assessment. “The Board of Peace embodies the purely transactional worldview of Trump,” their statement read. “Power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, and global decision-making is reduced to a privilege for those with the deepest pockets.” The project represents a “dangerous development” and a “hostile takeover of global governance”, the group warned.
There already is a peace council and that’s the United Nations
According to different reports, around twenty states joined the Board of Peace at the time of its inauguration in Davos with additional six having stated their intention to do so. Absent on the list are most of the world’s democracies, many of whom already declined joining. Trump “uninvited” Canada following a speech of Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney in Davos in which he called on middle powers to join forces amid “great power rivalry” and “coercion”.
Governments are also distancing themselves in clearer terms. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva rejected the Board of Peace, accusing Trump of proposing “a new UN where only he is the owner” and warning that “the UN Charter is being torn.” Germany’s Foreign Minister stated that “we already have a peace council and that’s the United Nations.” In a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz later noted that the board’s Charter and its leadership structure in itself already prohibits joining the initiative, citing “constitutional reasons.” Meloni similarly said it would be “unconstitutional” for Italy to participate.
Calls for democratizing the UN
Rather than offering an alternative, the Board of Peace underscores the need to strengthen and reinvigorate the United Nations as a legitimate framework for global cooperation. For this purpose, civil society groups such as Democracy Without Borders and Democracy International have been calling for changes that would enhance the UN’s democratic character. Proposals include introducing the instrument of UN World Citizens’ Initiative, to enable people to add items to the UN’s agenda; a UN Parliamentary Assembly, to include elected representatives; and Global Citizens’ Assemblies to draw on citizen input.
In a recent survey commissioned by Democracy Without Borders, 40 percent of respondents drawn from 101 countries tended to support a “citizen-elected world parliament to handle global issues.” “The need of the day is the opposite of what Trump’s Board of Peace represents and that is global democracy,” said the group’s Executive Director, Andreas Bummel.