Okay, here’s a breakdown of the key points from the provided text, focusing on Trump’s “Board of Peace” initiative and the international reaction to it:

Main Idea:

Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of peace” aimed at resolving global conflicts, initially framed around the Gaza situation, has largely been met with skepticism and rejection from major international players, including key members of the UN Security Council. The initiative’s scope broadened substantially, alienating potential supporters.

Key Details:

* Original focus: The Board was initially presented as a way to address the conflict in Gaza.
* Expanded Mandate: Trump subsequently suggested a much broader mandate for the Board, potentially replacing the UN’s role in international peace and security. This wider scope included his idea of potentially “replacing” the U.N.
* UN Rejection: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reaffirmed that the UN Security Council holds the sole legal authority for binding decisions on peace and security.
* Lack of Support from Major Powers: China,France,Russia,and the United Kingdom (the other permanent members of the Security Council) haven’t signed on. Neither have economic powers like Germany and Japan.
* Reasons for Opposition:

* The broadened mandate made the Board seem like a “Trump fan club,” deterring potential supporters.
* Countries who were interested in helping with Gaza were turned off by the expansion of the board.
* Coincidental Proposals: The rollout of the Board coincided with other controversial Trump proposals, like attempting to purchase Greenland and threatening to punish NATO allies.
* Critic’s View: Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group believes the Board’s focus shoudl have remained solely on Gaza to attract more support.

In essence, the article portrays Trump’s “Board of Peace” as a largely unsuccessful diplomatic effort, hampered by its evolving scope, controversial timing,

How did Trump’s Board of Peace plan influence the renewed support for and revitalization of UN diplomacy?

Trump’s Board of Peace Plan & The Resurgence of UN Diplomacy

The unexpected shift in geopolitical strategy initiated by former President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” – a privately funded initiative focused on direct negotiations in conflict zones – has yielded a surprising outcome: renewed and significant support for the United Nations. Initially viewed wiht skepticism by many international relations experts, the board’s approach, while unconventional, appears to have inadvertently highlighted the critical need for a robust, multilateral association like the UN to provide legitimacy and long-term stability to peace processes.

The Board of Peace: A Disruptive Force

Launched in late 2024, the board of Peace, comprised of business leaders and former diplomats hand-picked by Trump, bypassed conventional diplomatic channels. Its core strategy involved facilitating direct talks between warring factions, frequently enough in neutral locations and with a focus on economic incentives. Early engagements centered on the protracted conflicts in Yemen and Sudan, areas where UN-led peace efforts had stalled.

The Board’s initial successes – brokering temporary ceasefires and establishing preliminary economic agreements – garnered attention. However, critics pointed to the lack of clarity, the potential for biased negotiations favoring specific economic interests, and the absence of a broader political framework. Concerns were raised about the long-term sustainability of agreements reached outside the UN system.

Why the UN is Back in the Spotlight

Despite the Board’s initial gains, the limitations of its approach quickly became apparent. several key issues emerged:

* Lack of International Legitimacy: Agreements reached without UN oversight struggled to gain widespread international acceptance, hindering the flow of aid and investment necesary for reconstruction.

* Enforcement Challenges: The Board lacked the authority to enforce its agreements, relying instead on the goodwill of the parties involved. This proved insufficient in several instances, leading to renewed violence.

* Coordination Gaps: The Board’s independent operation created friction with existing UN peacekeeping missions and humanitarian efforts, leading to duplication of efforts and conflicting priorities.

These challenges underscored the vital role the UN plays in providing a universally recognized framework for peacebuilding. The Board’s experience demonstrated that while private initiatives can facilitate initial dialog, lasting peace requires the legitimacy, enforcement mechanisms, and coordinating power of an international body like the UN.

Increased Funding and Political Capital for the UN

The perceived shortcomings of the Board of Peace have triggered a wave of renewed support for the UN. Several key developments illustrate this trend:

* Increased Member State Contributions: In December 2025, a record number of UN member states pledged increased financial contributions to the organization’s peacekeeping and advancement programs. The United States, despite previous threats to reduce its funding, announced a restoration of its full assessed contribution.

* Revitalized Security Council Engagement: The UN Security Council has seen a resurgence in activity, with increased engagement on conflict resolution efforts in several regions, including Ukraine, Myanmar, and the Sahel.

* Strengthened UN Mediation Efforts: The UN Secretary-General has appointed several high-profile special envoys to lead mediation efforts in conflict zones, building on the initial openings created by the Board of Peace but operating within the established UN framework.

* Focus on Lasting development goals: There’s a renewed emphasis on addressing the root causes of conflict through the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), recognizing that poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity are major drivers of instability.

The Trump Factor: An Unintended Legacy?

Ironically, the Board of Peace, conceived as an choice to the UN, has inadvertently strengthened the organization’s position.While Trump’s supporters may view the Board as a pragmatic attempt to break through diplomatic gridlock, the broader international community appears to have interpreted its limitations as a reaffirmation of the UN’s indispensable role.

The situation highlights a key dynamic in international relations: the enduring need for multilateralism, even in an era of rising nationalism and geopolitical competition. The Board’s actions served as a real-world case study, demonstrating the limitations of unilateral approaches and the enduring value of a rules-based international order.

Case Study: Yemen – From Ceasefire to Comprehensive peace Talks

The situation in Yemen provides a compelling exmaple of this dynamic. The Board of Peace brokered a temporary ceasefire between the warring parties in early 2025. However,the ceasefire quickly unraveled due to a lack of progress on key political issues,such as power-sharing and the status of Houthi rebels.

It was only when the UN Special Envoy for Yemen, working in coordination with regional actors, stepped in to facilitate comprehensive peace talks – building on the initial ceasefire but addressing the underlying political issues – that a more sustainable path towards peace emerged. The UN-led talks, which are ongoing as of January 2026, have yielded significant progress on a framework for a transitional government and a roadmap for long-term stability.

The Future of UN Diplomacy

The resurgence of support for the UN is not without its challenges. The organization remains hampered by bureaucratic inefficiencies, political divisions, and a lack of resources. However, the lessons learned from the Board of Peace experience have created a window of opportunity for reform and revitalization.

key areas for betterment include:

* Strengthening UN Mediation Capacity: Investing in training and resources for UN mediators to enhance their ability to facilitate complex peace negotiations.

*