President Trump is clearly unimpressed by the UN’s record in trying to resolve recent conflicts and establish peace. He has referred to how he has had to assume the peace mantle in Gaza, Ukraine and many other hotspots around the world, faced with a UN that does not seem able to get the parties to…
President Trump is clearly unimpressed by the UN’s record in trying to resolve recent conflicts and establish peace. He has referred to how he has had to assume the peace mantle in Gaza, Ukraine and many other hotspots around the world, faced with a UN that does not seem able to get the parties to the table or to enforce a peace once there is a ceasefire.
As a result he is setting up a new Peace Board for the world which he will chair, whose aims will be to establish and manage peace settlements around the globe. He is inviting world leaders to join him and claims that 35 have so far agreed to do so.
European countries and the UK are reluctant or unwilling to join because Mr Putin is going to be a member. President Trump’s point is you do not get peace unless the main powers and regional protagonists are round the same table. He could also point out that the presence of Mr Putin at the Security Council of the UN with a right to veto does not prevent EU countries belonging to the UN nor prevent the UK and France being fellow Security Council members around the same table as Russia.
What can this new body do? The original sketch seemed to be to get interested parties together to help stabilise and rebuild Gaza after the war, but the remit now seems much broader. It would be good to know if this is seen as a ginger group to show the UN how to get progress to peace, or a planned replacement for a UN adjudged too unwieldy and wrong headed by the US President. Will this body end up concentrating on Gaza? Does Mr Putin’s likely presence make settlement of Ukraine any more likely? As countries wishing to be permanent members are invited to contribute $1bn, what will they do with the money? Will this body soon have staff and a prestigious headquarters? Will this body carry on after the Trump Presidency? What are the succession plans for its chairmanship?
There are plenty of questions to be answered before you can come to a fair assessment of this initiative. Many of us want peace and will back ways that can promote it effectively. A UN that works better would be great, or an alternative to the UN that works would be good, but a contest between rival bodies dividing the democracies over which to support would not be helpful.
