President Donald Trump’s latest effort to shape the post-ceasefire direction for Gaza through a proposed “Board of Peace” has met a mixed response from governments: some countries have signaled support for the idea of international engagement, but major powers and other governments have resisted U.S. attempts to broaden the board’s authority beyond the U.N. framework.
The Associated Press reported that the board was originally discussed as a smaller group of world leaders overseeing Trump’s vision for Gaza’s future, but that the U.S. role quickly expanded in scope—seeking to position the board as a mediator of worldwide conflicts and, in effect, to eclipse the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining international peace and security.
The controversy also centers on the board’s charter. It includes language stating Trump would lead the board until he resigns, while also giving him veto power over the board’s actions and its membership. Rubio later sought to calm concerns by framing the proposal as limited in reach and time, rather than as an institutional replacement.
Rubio told a congressional hearing that “This is not a replacement for the U.N., but the U.N. has served very little purpose in the case of Gaza other than the food assistance.” He also said the board’s immediate focus was the next phases of the Gaza ceasefire plan. U.N. officials and other governments, however, have said the board’s broadened mandate and Trump’s comments about it “might” replacing the U.N. have raised alarms inside the international system.
Guterres, in comments delivered Thursday, argued that international authority remains with the Security Council. He said, “In my opinion, the basic responsibility for international peace and security lies with U.N., lies with the Security Council,” and added that “Only the Security Council can adopt decisions binding on all, and no other body or other coalition can legally be required to have all member states to comply with decisions on peace and security.”
Security Council members including China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom have refused or not indicated whether they would join the U.S.-promoted board, according to the report. The AP also said other major economic powers, including Japan and Germany, have similarly not signed on. U.S. allies and adversaries alike have treated the board as an attempt to overturn aspects of the post-World War II international order, the report said.
The report tied parts of the diplomatic tension to parallel disputes during the same period, including Trump’s Greenland-related vow and subsequent reversal. It said invitations sent to invite world leaders as “founding members” coincided with the U.S. pledge to take over Greenland, which was met with rebuttals from Canada, Denmark and others, before Trump later agreed with the NATO secretary-general on a “framework of a future deal” on Arctic security.
European governments have also declined participation for reasons that included concern about overlap with U.N. work and the board’s relationship to U.N. structures. The AP said British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met Guterres in London and reiterated “the UK’s enduring support for the UN and the international rules-based system,” while emphasizing the U.N.’s “pivotal role in tackling global problems.” The United Kingdom, the report said, declined to take part in Trump’s signing ceremony at Davos in Switzerland last week, but had not yet officially responded to the board invitation.
In France, Spanish and Slovenian statements declined participation by citing what they described as conflicting agendas or the board’s divergence from the U.N. framework. The report said French President Emmanuel Macron called the board beyond the Gaza framework and said it “raises serious questions, in particular with respect to the principles and structure of the United Nations, which cannot be called into question.” Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said Spain would not join because the board excluded the Palestinian Authority and because the body was “outside the framework of the United Nations.”
Outside Europe and the U.S., China’s U.N. ambassador, Fu Cong, said at a Security Council meeting that “No single country should dictate terms based on its power, and a winner-takes-all approach is unacceptable,” and called for the U.N. to be strengthened rather than weakened. He warned that, in a reference to the board, countries would not “cherry-pick our commitments to the organization,” or “bypass the U.N. and create alternative mechanisms.”
The report said roughly 26 of about 60 invited countries have joined the board, with about nine European countries declining. It said some countries—including India, which did not attend the Davos signing ceremony—were still deciding, while Trump revoked Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s invitation. Human rights and international-policy critics also questioned the board’s direction, with Louis Charbonneau of Human Rights Watch saying it was “hardly surprising that very few governments want to join Trump’s wannabe-U.N.” and arguing that governments should strengthen the U.N. instead of paying to join.
The International Crisis Group’s Richard Gowan said the charter’s expansion turned the effort into a “liability,” arguing that countries that might have joined Gaza-focused work saw the board becoming a “Trump fan club.” Gowan said the broader goal made it harder to attract additional states, including Europeans who otherwise might have been inclined to support a Gaza-specific arrangement. He said he remained unconvinced that the board posed a real long-term threat to the U.N. system.
The same AP story included an internal correction to clarify that the United Kingdom declined to take part in Trump’s Davos signing ceremony and expressed concerns about the proposal, but had not yet officially responded to the board invitation.