K’ONYANGO: Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ threat to rules-based world order

Recent discussions around US President Donald Trump’s proposed ‘board of peace’ should concern anyone who values multilateralism, international law and global equity. While the idea is presented as a fresh approach to conflict resolution, a closer look reveals something far less benign.

Rather than strengthening global peace, this scheme reflects a deeper pattern of unilateralism that undermines the United Nations, weakens the rules-based international order and ultimately serves narrow US interests, possibly even personal ones.

The UN, for all its imperfections, remains the most legitimate platform for managing international peace and security. It is grounded in collective decision-making, sovereign equality and internationally agreed rules.

Trump’s ‘board of peace,’ by contrast, appears to bypass this framework entirely. It promotes the idea that peace can be dictated by a small, self-selected group, dominated by US influence, rather than shaped through inclusive global consensus. This is not reform; it is circumvention.

History offers a clear warning. When powerful states act outside multilateral institutions, the result is rarely peace or stability. Instead, such actions erode trust, weaken international norms and create a world where might makes right. Trump’s proposal fits neatly into this pattern.

It chips away at the authority of the UN while normalising the idea that global governance can be redesigned at the whim of a single power. Over time, this approach hollows out the very foundations of the international system built after World War II to prevent chaos and domination.

Equally troubling is the economic dimension of this proposal. Trump’s political record shows a consistent tendency to frame global engagement as a transaction designed to benefit the US at others’ expense. Under the guise of ‘peace,’ the board risks becoming another mechanism for extracting economic and political concessions.

Whether through reconstruction contracts, arms deals, or strategic access to resources, such initiatives often leave developing regions paying the price while wealth flows back to Washington—and, potentially, to private interests closely linked to political power.

For Africa, China and the broader Global South, vigilance is essential. These regions have historically borne the costs of externally imposed ‘solutions’ that prioritise foreign agendas over local realities.

A so-called peace initiative that excludes their voices, weakens multilateral protections and concentrates power in a few hands should be approached with caution. Accepting such frameworks uncritically risks reinforcing old patterns of dependency and exploitation under a new label.

Fortunately, alternatives already exist. China’s Global Development Initiative, for instance, emphasises development as the foundation of lasting peace.

Rather than imposing political conditions or bypassing international institutions, it focuses on poverty reduction, infrastructure, food security and inclusive growth issues that directly address the root causes of instability. While no initiative is perfect, the GDI reflects a broader commitment to cooperation, mutual benefit and respect for national sovereignty.

Africa, too, has its own homegrown frameworks worth strengthening. The African Union’s peace and security architecture, regional economic communities and development agendas demonstrate that sustainable solutions are most effective when they are locally informed and collectively owned.

These initiatives recognise that peace cannot be separated from development, dignity and fairness. They also align more closely with the spirit of multilateralism than unilateral schemes dressed up as innovation.

The choice facing the Global South is therefore not a lack of options, but a question of direction. One path leads toward fragmented global governance dominated by unilateral power plays, where ‘peace’ becomes a tool for enrichment and control.

The other path, though more complex and demanding, seeks to uphold justice, fairness and shared responsibility through inclusive institutions and cooperative development.

Trump’s ‘board of peace’ may sound appealing in rhetoric, but in substance it represents a step backward. It weakens the UN, undermines the rules-based order and risks turning peace into a commodity. China, Africa and other developing regions should resist such shortcuts and instead invest in strengthening multilateral alternatives that reflect their interests and values.

In a world already facing deep divisions, true peace will not come from unilateral schemes or transactional diplomacy. It will come from cooperation rooted in fairness, respect and shared development—a vision the Global South must continue to defend and advance.