Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’: Power, illusion, and the long tradition of American political engineering |
American global power has never been exercised solely through military force. Equally central to its dominance has been the ability to design, redesign, and selectively bypass international systems of governance. From institutions and coalitions to doctrines and diplomatic frameworks, the United States has repeatedly demonstrated that when the rules of the global order no longer serve its interests, those rules can be revised-or replaced entirely. It is within this historical continuum that US President Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” must be understood.
Announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos with characteristic bravado, Trump presented the Board of Peace as a revolutionary instrument for conflict resolution, postwar reconstruction, and global stabilization. Framed as a neutral, elite-driven body capable of cutting through bureaucratic paralysis, the initiative was marketed as evidence of America’s enduring leadership in the pursuit of peace. Gaza, devastated by Israel’s military campaign, was positioned as the Board’s first major test case.
Many commentators were quick to dismiss the proposal as another idiosyncratic Trump spectacle-an impulsive, ego-driven invention untethered from established foreign policy traditions. Such interpretations, however, mistake style for substance. Trump’s rhetoric may be unusually theatrical, but the political logic underpinning the Board of Peace is deeply familiar. Far from being an aberration, it represents a continuation-and intensification-of long-standing American practices of political control.
At Davos, Trump reiterated a set of claims that have become central to his political identity: that he has ended wars, brokered historic peace deals, and restored global order through sheer force of will. These assertions are demonstrably false, yet they serve an important ideological function. They reinforce the myth of American indispensability-the idea that peace is not the result of international law, collective accountability, or local agency, but of US intervention guided by enlightened leadership.
The Board of Peace, in this sense, is not simply an institution. It is a narrative device. It constructs........