Will Trump’s push to become chief peacemaker marginalize the struggling United Nations?

“We have the power…to end decades of suffering, stop generations of hatred and bloodshed, and create a beautiful, lasting and glorious peace for this region and for the entire world.”

That’s the big promise US President Donald Trump made this week when he took the stage at the Davos Economic Forum to inaugurate a new peace commission.

The world, filled with so much suffering and strife, desperately wants to believe in Him.

But for many observers and officials in the world’s capitals, it was further evidence of Trump’s commitment to dismantling the postwar international architecture and replacing it with new institutions he would dominate.

“We will not let anyone play us,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned succinctly on social media.

But Viktor Orban, Trump’s biggest supporter in Europe, enthuses: “If there is Trump, there will be peace.”

What exactly will this commission, permanently headed by Trump himself, do? Is this really about building a mini-me of the United Nations?

The idea, born last year in the U.S.-led effort to end the war in Gaza and endorsed by a U.N. Security Council resolution, now has a bigger, grander, more global ambition. It centers on the president.

Details of the leaked draft bylaws revealed that he would be chairman of the board for life even after leaving office. According to the Charter, his powers will be huge: the right to invite or not to invite member states; the right to decide whether to invite member states; the right to decide whether to invite member states. Create or dissolve subsidiary bodies; have the right to appoint his successor when he decides to resign or becomes incapacitated.

If any other country wanted to become a permanent member, the price would be as high as $1bn (£740m).

This latest bombshell comes in an already dizzying month. In just a few weeks, the United States has captured Venezuela’s leader, Trump has threatened and prepared military action against Iran and demanded Greenland, sending shockwaves across Europe and beyond.

Nineteen countries from Argentina to Azerbaijan, from former Soviet republics to Gulf kingdoms attended the inauguration of the Davos Council. Many more are said to have “agreed to join”.

“In this group, I like every single one of them,” Trump said, laughing, looking at the leaders and officials whose names are now on the committee or its lower executive agencies.

So far, many more potential members have politely objected.

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper explained: “This is a treaty that raises wider questions and we do have concerns about President Putin’s involvement in talking about peace.”

Trump said Russia had joined the effort, although Moscow’s message was that they remained “advisory partners.”

“As the text stands,” we will not join, Sweden replied.

Norway’s diplomatic response was that “the proposal raises a number of outstanding issues that require further dialogue with Washington.”

Even seven predominantly Muslim countries, including six Arab states as well as Turkey and Indonesia, have made clear they are committed to “a just and lasting peace in Gaza,” including rebuilding the shattered enclave.

However, leaked details of the commission’s charter make no mention of Gaza.

To some critics, including some reluctant countries, it’s a vanity project for a president who has made no secret of his interest in winning the greatest honor: the Nobel Peace Prize, which President Obama received in 2009 at the start of his first term in the White House.

World leaders know there may be costs to not joining this new club.

“I’m going to put a 200% tariff on his wine and champagne, and he will join in, but he won’t have to join in.” It was the president’s rebuke to French President Emmanuel Macron and his threat to use his weapon of choice.

Only Slovenia spoke the quiet part out loud. Prime Minister Robert Golob made clear his concerns – that it “dangerously interferes with the broader international order”.

Trump addressed this concern head on.

“Once this committee is fully formed, we can do almost anything we want to do, and we will do it together with the United Nations,” he explained to the packed hall, his every word hung on them.

But he likes to keep the world guessing.

A day earlier, when asked by a Fox reporter whether his committee would replace the United Nations, he replied: “Maybe. The United Nations just hasn’t been very helpful.”

He then added, “I’m a big fan of the potential of the United Nations, but it has never lived up to its potential. The United Nations should solve every war I solve.”

The 193-member United Nations has indeed long since lost its role as chief peacemaker.

When I interviewed Secretary-General António Guterres on his first day in office in October 2016, just hours after a rare unanimous endorsement by the Security Council, he pledged “a vigorous pursuit of peace diplomacy.”

The U.N.’s efforts over the past decade have been hampered by gridlock in the Security Council, a growing number of spoilers and state sponsors in wars around the world, and an erosion of its own position vis-à-vis the world’s most powerful players, including the United States.

“We must all welcome Mr. Trump’s aggressive action to end the war,” said UN veteran Martin Griffiths, who said the new effort was “clearly a clear reflection of the failure of the UN Security Council and the United Nations.”

But the former Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator warned that “what we have learned over the past 80 years through a lot of failure and fumbling has taught us the value of inclusivity, the value of representing the international community, not just the value of Mr. Trump’s friends.”

Guterres himself recently lamented that “some people believe that the force of law should be replaced by the law of power.”

In an interview with the BBC’s Today programme, when asked about Trump’s constant claims that he had ended eight wars, he matter-of-factly replied “they were ceasefires”.

Some have collapsed.

An interim peace deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo soon unraveled, with Cambodia and Thailand beginning to push more charges across their borders and India raising questions about Trump’s central role in ending the conflict with Pakistan.

But only strong mediation by Trump can end the 12-day war between Iran and Israel.

Last October, his personal involvement ultimately secured a ceasefire in the devastating confrontation in Gaza, easing the suffering of Palestinians and the suffering of Israeli hostages. His decision to finally focus fully on the disaster was partly in response to urging from his closest Arab allies and grieving Israeli families, prompting him to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas to reach a deal.

But even the council’s first test – moving from the first phase of the deal to ending the war in Gaza – is daunting. Even now, the new council is slowly being formed and includes Netanyahu, who has vowed to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and Arab leaders who insist that the only path to sustainable peace must lead to Palestinian autonomy and an end to the Israeli occupation.

Another big war on the American and European agenda is Ukraine. President Zelenskyy is unwilling to sit at the same table as Moscow and Minsk.

The committee is divided into three tiers, focusing primarily on Gaza – the Executive Committee, the Gaza Executive Committee and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.

They brought together senior U.S. officials and billionaires, respected former politicians familiar with Gaza and a former U.N. envoy, as well as Arab ministers and intelligence chiefs and Palestinian technocrats.

Even some critics believe the president has brought to the table an age-old struggle of a different kind – the ongoing demands to reform the United Nations’ postwar architecture, including a Security Council that is no longer aligned with the world’s political map of each of the region’s major powers. It’s simply not fit for purpose.

Mark Malloch Brown, former deputy secretary-general of the United Nations, said: “Maybe there are good unintended consequences of what Trump is doing, and these issues will be pushed back to the top of the international agenda.”

“We are coming out of a period of extremely weak leadership at the United Nations, and I think this may be a call to action.”

Ironically, as Trump attempts to lead the world toward peace, many capitals are discussing replacing Guterres, who is completing his second term at the end of this year.

The president had previously claimed he could end the war in Ukraine in one day, but he spent his final year in office learning that building peace was a long and dangerous process.

But today he welcomed the Middle East, where only “small fires” are burning. He promised that a settlement on Ukraine would be “very soon.”

He is excited about his new role as the future Chief Peacemaker.

“This is for the whole world,” he exclaimed.

Top image source: Reuters

BBC in-depth report is home to the best analysis on the site and apps, delivering fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and in-depth reporting on today’s biggest issues. Emma Barnett and John Simpson bring their selection of the most thought-provoking in-depth reads and analysis every Saturday. Sign up for the newsletter here