\nCitizens of almost half<\/a> of the countries that have joined the board so far are impacted by US travel bans imposed by the Trump administration. The board also appears to have been created on a \u2018pay for play\u2019 basis, with no clear oversight of the organisation\u2019s nominally voluntary membership fees, particularly the USD 1 billion fee to secure permanent membership, raising the spectre of a potential world order where access to justice and the promotion, protection and fulfilment of human rights are dependent on a nation\u2019s wealth, its military capability, and ultimately, its standing with the US president.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
As its \u2018inaugural chairman\u2019, the president exercises more expansive powers than the UN Secretary General. As well as presiding over the governing board of member states, he also has the power to select board members, to veto any decisions adopted by a majority of members, to appoint his own successor as chair, and to dismiss board members \u2018subject to a veto by a two thirds majority of Member States\u2019, all of whom are beholden to him for said membership. Membership of the board is only accessed through an invitation from the chair and is limited to a three-year period, renewable only via an invitation from the chair. The sole means of exemption is for states to pay the US$D 1 billion permanent membership fee within the first year of the organisation\u2019s charter entering into force. All amendments and decisions to dissolve the organisation must also be approved by the chairman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Board of Peace envisaged in Security Council resolution 2803 as a transitional administration of Gaza \u2018to set the framework, and coordinate funding for, the redevelopment of Gaza pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan\u2019 was designed as a temporary body, with a mandate ending on 31 December 2027, and renewable after consideration by the Council. However, the charter of the US president\u2019s Board of Peace states that the organisation may be dissolved at the end of every odd-numbered year, to be decided by the chair. This mirroring of the term limits in the resolution 2803 raises further questions regarding the USD 1 billion permanent membership fee for an organisation that could potentially be terminated in its second year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition, the human rights records of several current member states are less than stellar. CSW is particularly concerned at the inclusion on the board of the Chair of Manchester City, Melbourne City and Mumbai City football clubs, Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, on behalf of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), despite extensive and credible evidence<\/a> of the UAE\u2019s continued provision of military and financial support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan, which currently stand accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UAE\u2019s inclusion is emblematic of the manner in which the board could be compromised by the inclusion of states that are actively undermining international peace and the advancement of human rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Khaldoon Al Mubarak by World Economic Forum is licensed under CC BY 3.0<\/a>.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Evidence of how the board is likely to operate is already apparent.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
On3 February<\/strong>the US hosted a hastily announced donor\u2019s meeting in Washington DC to raise funds for Sudan. During the meeting the US government pledged USD 2 billion to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which was warmly received, and the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, subsequently praised both President Trump and the Board of Peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This meeting did not include representatives of the RSF, or the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), with whom it is has been in conflict since April 2023, which is not particularly unusual. However, more concerning is the total omission of members of Sudanese civil society and pro-democracy groups like Soumoud, which is led by the country\u2019s former prime minister, Abdalla Hamdok.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The failure to include such groups means that their views will not be represented, and this will have implications for the implementation of whatever peace the US and others manage to negotiate. It is also notable that the German government has announced plans to host a funding conference for Sudan, building on the London conference in April 2025 and the Paris Conference in April 2024. It would perhaps be more beneficial and effective to coordinate these international interventions. However, the US president appears more inclined towards centring his interests, and the Board of Peace, in any negotiations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The current international order has its shortcomings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
One of the primary reasons for the creation of the UN was to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security in a post-war era in which two of the five permanent Security Council members possessed empires and a third was a one-party transcontinental federation of 15 republics. Over the following decades the world witnessed the often painful process of decolonisation and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, events which diminished three permanent members to differing extents, while expanding the UN\u2019s membership as individual states gained independence. However, while membership of the organisation grew, its structures failed to accommodate the altered international dynamics sufficiently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consequently, as the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney highlighted at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos<\/a>, a multilateral system persisted in which the application of international law was dependent on the identity of the victim and perpetrator, stronger nations \u2013 and particularly the veto powers – could exempt themselves and their allies from rules whenever convenient, and trading relations remained asymmetrical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/khaldoon-al-mubarak-by-world-economic-forum-is-licensed-under-cc-by-3.0-edited.png\")