Sat Jan 24 02:59:34 UTC 2026: ### Headline: Trump Launches “Board of Peace” in Davos, Aiming to Bolster Gaza, Challenges UN’s Role

The Story:

On January 22, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump formally ratified the Charter of the Board of Peace in Davos, Switzerland, establishing it as an official international organization. Trump, serving as Chairman, stated the Board would work with the UN, despite his criticism of the UN’s past performance. The Board’s stated purpose is to foster peace, stability, and opportunity for the people of Gaza, but Trump hinted at expanding its scope beyond. Several nations, including the UAE, have signed on to join the Board, while China has vowed to defend the UN system.

The UN, through spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, acknowledged the Board’s formation and reiterated its commitment to Security Council Resolution 2803, which welcomed the Board of Peace for Gaza. Dujarric emphasized the UN’s ongoing work in delivering humanitarian aid and its collaboration with U.S. authorities. However, Trump’s earlier comments suggest the Board could potentially replace the United Nations if the latter continues to underperform.

Key Points:

  • President Donald Trump ratified the Charter of the Board of Peace in Davos on January 22, 2026.
  • The Board’s initial focus is on Gaza, with potential for expansion beyond.
  • Donald Trump will serve as the Board’s Chairman.
  • Countries including Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and Uzbekistan, have joined the Charter of the Board of Peace.
  • The UN acknowledges the Board and reaffirms its commitment to Security Council Resolution 2803.
  • Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, stated that the U.N. is “committed” to ensuring the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 2803.
  • Donald Trump has suggested the Board could eventually replace the UN.
  • China says it will defend UN system after Board of Peace invitation

Critical Analysis:

The timeline suggests that the formation of the Board of Peace is a recent development, with significant implications for the existing international order. The headline “Will the Board of Peace live up to its name?” indicates pre-existing skepticism or uncertainty surrounding the Board’s effectiveness. Trump’s establishment of the Board appears to be a direct response to his perceived failures of the UN, potentially signaling a shift in U.S. foreign policy towards more unilateral or selectively multilateral approaches. China’s response highlights potential geopolitical tensions arising from this initiative.

Key Takeaways:

  • Shift in Global Power Dynamics: The creation of the Board of Peace signals a potential reshaping of international diplomacy, with the US taking a more direct and potentially competitive role alongside the UN.
  • Challenges to the UN: Trump’s actions pose a challenge to the UN’s authority and central role in international peace and security.
  • Geopolitical Tensions: The differing reactions from global powers, particularly China, highlight potential geopolitical friction resulting from the Board’s formation.
  • Focus on Gaza: The initial focus on Gaza underscores the persistent international concern for the region’s stability and humanitarian needs.
  • Uncertain Future: The long-term success and impact of the Board of Peace remain uncertain, contingent upon its ability to achieve tangible results and navigate complex geopolitical dynamics.

Impact Analysis:

The Board of Peace could have significant long-term implications:

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution: If successful, the Board might establish a new model for international dispute resolution, potentially bypassing or supplementing the UN Security Council.
  • Regional Alliances: The countries joining the Board may form a new coalition or strengthen existing regional alliances, impacting global power structures.
  • Funding and Resources: The allocation of resources towards the Board could divert funding from existing UN programs, affecting the UN’s operational capacity.
  • Legitimacy and Recognition: The Board’s legitimacy will depend on its ability to achieve concrete results in Gaza and elsewhere, influencing its recognition by the international community.
  • Future Conflicts: The Board’s approach to conflict resolution could either complement or conflict with existing international law and norms, potentially impacting the handling of future conflicts.

    Read More

Related News: