The Board of Peace: A pay-to-play world order?
Boardroom politics may replace global diplomacy with US President Trump’s new Board of Peace. In this architecture, peace is only a privilege for those who can pay for a seat at the chairman’s table. Commentator Imran Khalid shares his views.
The United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York currently faces a fiscal crisis that threatens its very existence. Secretary-General António Guterres has confirmed that the organisation is approaching a state of “imminent financial collapse”. This insolvency is the direct result of the US withholding billions of dollars in dues — with the US now owing nearly US$2.2 billion to the regular budget alone — and systematically withdrawing from dozens of international agencies. While this retreat from the global stage is often described as isolationism, recent developments suggest a more calculated transition toward a new model of American influence.
The BoP represents a lean, agile alternative that views geopolitical conflicts not as humanitarian tragedies to be settled through mediation, but as market inefficiencies to be corrected through capital and force.
Lifting the veil of US altruism
The administration is not merely abandoning the post-war international order; it is replacing it with a private, transactional alternative. This successor, titled the Board of Peace (BoP), represents a fundamental shift in how the US intends to manage global affairs. Unlike the UN, which is built on the principle of sovereign equality and universal law, the BoP functions as a selective investment vehicle. Membership requires a billion-dollar commitment and a willingness to adhere to a charter that prizes market stability over democratic consensus, with President Trump serving as the organisation’s “chairman for life”.
This transformation is fuelled by a belief that the bureaucracy of the 20th century is too slow for the crises of the 21st. By framing global cooperation as a subscription service rather than a moral obligation, the administration is effectively stripping away the pretence of altruism from American foreign policy. The BoP represents a lean, agile alternative that views geopolitical conflicts not as humanitarian tragedies to be settled through mediation, but as market inefficiencies to be corrected through capital and force.
This is no mere fiscal oversight; it is a leveraged buyout of global stability. By withholding US$2.196 billion — nearly 95% of the regular UN budget — Washington has engineered a liquidity trap that forces the secretariat to choose between staff furloughs and total insolvency. While the UN enters a “race to bankruptcy” returning unspent credits it never actually received, the BoP operates with the brisk efficiency of a private equity firm, unburdened by the mandates of climate or gender parity. It creates a tiered world order: a high-speed lane for US$1 billion “stakeholders” and a dead end for the rest. In this new architecture, peace is no longer a human right; it is a premium service accessible only to those who can pay for a seat at the chairman’s table.
This new framework moved from theory to practice following the recent capture of Nicolás Maduro in Caracas during Operation Absolute Resolve. The operation was conducted without the authorisation of the UN Security Council or consultation with the Organization of American States. Instead of restoring traditional democratic institutions in Venezuela, the administration is managing the country’s transition, focusing on oil production and migration control. This event serves as a proof of concept for a world in which American power is exercised through corporate-style management rather than through multilateral diplomacy.
This shift effectively re-platforms international relations onto a system where access to US markets serves as the primary incentive.
Draining the old structure of resources
The deliberate nature of the UN’s decline is becoming increasingly apparent. By starving the old system of resources, the administration is forcing a choice upon the international community. Nations are being encouraged to abandon the slow, deliberative processes of the UN General Assembly in favour of the rapid, bilateral deal-making offered by the BoP. Why participate in a global climate accord when one can secure a private energy contract through a US-led board? The Trump administration’s exit from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization is not a withdrawal into a shell, but a migration to a proprietary platform.
This shift effectively re-platforms international relations onto a system where access to US markets serves as the primary incentive. It is a world where the US no longer views global stability as a public good to be subsidised, but as a private commodity to be brokered. The BoP does not recognise the traditional veto power of rival nations unless those nations have sufficient financial equity in the specific transaction at hand. Under this regime, the concept of a rogue state is redefined; a nation is no longer judged by its human rights record, but by its refusal to integrate into the Board’s financial architecture.
... the democratic accountability that once anchored American intervention is notably absent from the new ledger.
US becoming a primary contractor
This represents a departure in Washington from decades of foreign policy tradition. The US is moving away from its role as the architect of a global community and toward a role as a primary contractor. This transactional era replaces the messy realities of international law with the enforceable terms of a contract.
The capture of Maduro and the subsequent handling of Venezuelan assets suggest that regime stability is now viewed through the lens of supply chain integration. The citizen becomes a stakeholder, and the diplomat becomes a dealmaker, yet the democratic accountability that once anchored American intervention is notably absent from the new ledger.
As the UN warns of imminent closure, the administration appears prepared to let the institution fade into irrelevance. The BoP is already operational, offering a leaner, more aggressive alternative to the post-war consensus. Whether a global order managed by a board of directors can provide lasting security remains to be seen. However, the US has made its preference clear. It is trading the complexities of global leadership for the streamlined efficiency of global ownership.
