Trump’s $1bn-Per-Member 'Board of Peace' Could Sideline the UN, British Officials Warn

British officials have warned that Donald Trump’s proposed Gaza "Board of Peace" risks concentrating "unprecedented power" in the hands of its chairman and could effectively marginalise the United Nations.

An Oversight Body or A New Global Power?

What was billed as a US-led committee to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction has rapidly expanded in scope, prompting concern in London and other capitals. The board’s draft charter names Mr Trump as chairman rather than vesting leadership in the US presidency or government institutions, grants him an unrestricted veto over member decisions and reportedly allows him to appoint his own successor. Each permanent member is being asked to pay $1bn (about £800m) for a permanent seat.

2101 Board of Peace

Fees, Governance and Transparency Questions

Diplomats are alarmed about how the $1bn membership fees would be managed and safeguarded, particularly because the executive board is reported to include wealthy private backers with ties to Mr Trump. Critics say the proposal lacks clear safeguards on financial oversight, accountability and conflict-of-interest protections.

Geopolitics And Membership Concerns

The plan reportedly invites leaders from roughly 60 countries to join with equal voting weight, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Experts warn that such parity could dilute the influence of traditional Western powers and create incentives for transactional diplomacy based on money and personal loyalty rather than established multilateral norms.

Mr Trump’s Board of Peace was initially intended to oversee the running and rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of a ceasefire agreement - Abdalhkem Abu Riash/Anadolu

"What started as a means to keep the US committed to peace in Gaza has turned into a monster," one British official told reporters.

Analysts have also suggested the board could be used, intentionally or inadvertently, to legitimise territorial claims or other unilateral actions — examples cited by critics include hypothetical scenarios such as renewed pressure on the Falklands or disputes over territory framed as "national security" concerns. Those scenarios remain speculative but illustrate the fears around concentrating veto power in a single individual.

Diplomatic Fallout And Reactions

The alarm among European and Arab capitals grew after a UN Security Council resolution in November gave the concept a legal foundation. Sources say some delegations judged the resolution’s wording too loose but supported it anyway to keep the US engaged in the Gaza process. Maya Ungar of the International Crisis Group said the US had secured regional approval in ways that made it difficult for other UN member states to oppose the plan effectively.

Sir Tony Blair is involved in a project that threatens to undermine the liberal world order he has championed - YOAN VALAT/AFP

So far, nine countries have confirmed they will join: Israel, Argentina, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Belarus. Around 60 countries reportedly received invitations. Several Western nations are still weighing the proposal: some leaders have indicated caution or asked for more detail rather than making immediate commitments.

When France’s president raised reservations, Mr Trump threatened punitive tariffs on French wine and champagne — an episode that underlined concerns about coercion and the use of economic pressure in membership negotiations.

Individuals Named To The Board

Former UK prime minister Sir Tony Blair has been named as a member of the executive board, a move that has drawn scrutiny over how much he knew of the initiative’s wider design. Supporters framed his involvement as a chance for renewed peacebuilding efforts in the region; critics say association with a body that could undermine multilateral institutions may contradict his long-standing advocacy for the international order.

Outlook

Many analysts believe the board will struggle to succeed unless a broad coalition signs up. Even if it collapses, experts warn the attempt itself could damage the credibility and influence of the UN and other multilateral institutions if it normalises parallel bodies with limited transparency and concentrated power. "The danger is not so much in the success of the project, but in the consequences and legacy of sustained attacks on the UN," said a policy expert quoted by diplomats.

Credit: Reuters