While President Trump has frequently criticized the United Nations (UN), the planned February 19 initial meeting of his Board of Peace and its follow-up could ironically provide a new opportunity for the United Nations at a time when it faces a financial crisis and loss of confidence. A grand initiative by the Secretary-General for peace in struggling Haiti could pave the way forward, with voluntary financing.
The Charter of the Board of Peace is indirectly critical of the UN. It laments that “too many approaches to peacebuilding foster perpetual dependency, and institutional crisis rather than leading people beyond it.” It implicitly refers here to UN peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions. The Board’s Charter does not need to mention the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan since 1949, the UN peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since 1964, and The Gambia’s engagement with the UN Peacebuilding Commission since 2017.
The Board of Peace Charter’s criticism of the UN and independence from the UN have raised concerns. For example, the French foreign ministry has criticized the Board of Peace itself as exceeding its mandate under the UN Security Council. France finds the Board’s Charter inconsistent with the UN Charter. Largely because of the Board’s open-ended mandate independent of the UN, the only OECD countries to have joined the Board of Peace are the US, Hungary, and Turkey.
The opportunity the Board gives to the United Nations: Build on the Board’s example and take advantage of President Trump’s support for peacebuilding and other conflict management activities without endorsement of the UN Security Council. This implies moving ahead without the veto of the P5 — Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Board is expected to establish the International Stabilization Force (ISF) for Gaza foreseen under Trump’s 20 Point Plan for peace. The ISF is cited but not explicitly endorsed under UN Security Council Resolution 2803. Thus the Board will have, in practice, established a new model for peacekeeping authorization without UN Security Council mandate and authority.
The UN General Assembly actually moved in this direction as early as its 1950 “Uniting for Peace” resolution (377A(V)). That resolution states that if lack of unanimity of the P5 makes Security Council action impossible, the General Assembly “shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures.” Under this resolution the U.S. and allies gained UN legitimacy and authority to fight the Korean War with a UN mandate. Similarly, the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) was established by the UNGA in 1956 following the Suez Crisis, to “secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities” between Egypt and Israel.
The Board of Peace introduces an additional critical dimension of peacekeeping by planning to rely on voluntary financing of the Board’s activities. These activities are, as is written in the Charter, to be financed by “Member States, other States, organizations, or other sources.” A $1 billion cash donation ensures a Member State a permanent seat on the Board. Key to the Board’s financing for the International Stabilization Force (ISF) is, in the words of the Charter, its financing from “other sources.” This opens Board-sponsored activities, including the ISF, to private financing, sovereign wealth funds, and innovative private-sector financial claims. Private financial support may be facilitated by such Trump friends on the Board as Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Tony Blair and Marc Rowan.
The UN’s existing peacekeeping effort is financially constrained because of its claim on all UN member states, as mandated under the UN budget — a legal requirement with sanctions for failure to pay under the UN Charter. That said, UN voluntary financing for political activities already exists, under the Secretary-General’s “Peacebuilding Fund.” This Fund is described on its website as “the organization’s financial instrument of first resort to sustain peace in countries or situations at risk or affected by violent conflict.”
The Fund supports “integrated UN responses to fill critical gaps; to respond quickly and with flexibility to peacebuilding opportunities; and catalyze processes and resources in a risk-tolerant fashion.” This doesn’t sound so different from the Board of Peace Mission and Functions: “to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” As of early 2026 the Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund had received over $2 billion in contributions.
Related Articles
Here is a list of articles selected by our Editorial Board that have gained significant interest from the public:
Stimulated by the Trump Board of Peace model and not constrained by a lack of UN examples, the Secretary-General should seize the moment to propose large-scale financing of new UN peace activities, in great part from private sources. If the Secretary-General approaches the idea as an abstract policy initiative for the establishment of new authorities, the weaknesses of the UN will quickly become clear. Objections may appear from its rigid bureaucracy and by various expert and intergovernmental committees such as the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee and other administrative and budgetary UN entities. Ignoring such objections, the Secretary-General should seize this moment to address a very specific critical peace and security problem of today on a large scale.
Haiti would be an excellent opportunity for the Secretary-General to pursue such an initiative. This country’s security situation is worsening, despite the presence of a multi-national gang suppression force authorized by the Security Council in September 2025. A governance transition is expected soon, with uncertainties on all sides. There is already an Integrated UN Office in Haiti collaborating with the police and other authorities. A new UN initiative would provide a substantial expansion of the mandate and the need for increasing UN personnel in Haiti.
Such a new mandate would strengthen the authority and personnel of UN armed forces in the country and increase UN presence in Haiti’s governance. While transition to complete self-governance is the desired end goal, it is likely there will be a need for a longer period of deep UN engagement in Haiti’s governance and security, even beyond what the UN has done in Cambodia and East Timor. It will need assured substantial, sustained financing, potentially largely from private sources, through the Secretary-General’s greatly enlarged Peacebuilding Fund.
Initial responses to a proposed UN Secretary-General Initiative for Haiti may be lukewarm, but that can be overcome by commitment from concerned governments and supportive voices in the UN Secretariat. Secretariat staff will have to recognize the great reputational benefits for the UN and be willing to forgo any prospect of losing power and authority. There will likely be opponents to the initiative among country diplomats who will seek to quash the initiative by holding lengthy meetings of the Security Council or the General Assembly. But the overwhelming response at the UN, from both country delegations and UN Secretariat personnel, should be positive to such a major initiative by the Secretary-General to claim a rightful place of the UN system on the global stage.
Support from the EU can be expected, if only and inappropriately to see the example of the Haiti initiative as a counter to the Trump-led Board of Peace. Some countries of the Global South and the UN’s Group of 77 may express fears of being “invaded” by the UN under an effective expansion of the UN’s Responsibility to Protect doctrine launched in 2005. Appropriate safeguards can be built into the initiative to obviate such concerns. Western countries may initially be hesitant, but their support can be secured through expressions of support from governmental and non-governmental leaders in the Organization of American States, Latin American countries, and elsewhere.
Careful management of reactions to the initiative in Haiti will be imperative. UN Peacekeepers were almost certainly responsible for introducing cholera in Haiti in 2010, and the local population responded with riots. Local perceptions then framed the tension between Haitians and the UN as akin to a Haitian/foreigner dichotomy and the UN were seen as colonisers or occupiers.
In launching a major new initiative for Haiti just as Trump’s Board of Peace is becoming operational with comparable activities, the UN Secretary-General has an opportunity to live up to his title in his final year of service. It is a risk, to be sure, but one very much worth taking.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of impakter.com — In the Cover Photo: Chilean UN peacekeepers patrol the Cité Soleil neighbourhood of Port-au-Prince during an operation to restore order in the area by the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), after three hours of heavy fighting between gangs, Haiti, Feb. 9, 2007. Cover Photo Credit: UN Photo/Logan Abassi.
