Bolduc Brief: Concerns About the Structure and Intent of the Proposed Board of Peace

As discussions unfold regarding the proposed “Board of Peace” under the Trump administration, significant concerns arise not only about its necessity but also about its organizational structure and the motivations behind its creation. A key issue lies in the fundamental misunderstanding of roles: heads of state should function as decision-makers rather than planners. The strategic handling of peace initiatives requires decisive leadership and diplomatic finesse, traits that may be compromised if heads of state are relegated to rote planning tasks rather than focusing on high-level decision-making crucial for fostering peace.

Moreover, the administration’s approach to announcing this board has, unfortunately, included a critique of respected institutions such as the United Nations. This adversarial stance is counterproductive; it alienates potential allies and undermines collaborative efforts aimed at conflict resolution. The UN and similar organizations have long been bastions of international diplomacy, and while they may have shortcomings, openly disparaging them raises questions about the commitment to genuine dialogue and cooperation. The focus, rather than on building alliances and fostering collaborative frameworks, appears to spotlight a desire for power and financial control—a narrative that complicates the goal of achieving lasting peace.

Another troubling aspect of the proposed board is the notion of including nations that are responsible for instigating conflict as board members. This approach can be likened to allowing “the fox in the henhouse,” effectively undermining the integrity of the board’s mission. Inviting participants with a demonstrated history of conflict into a peace-promoting initiative casts doubt on the board’s legitimacy. Their involvement could skew discussions and undermine the objectives of genuinely fostering peace and reconciliation among nations. If the intention is to create a space conducive to dialogue, it is crucial to consider the values and actions of those being invited to the table.

Furthermore, the sentiment surrounding the proposed Board of Peace exudes an air of hubris and conceit. The notion that a new organization could eclipse existing entities that have decades, if not centuries, of diplomatic experience is both arrogant and perilous. It suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexities inherent in international relations. Rather than presenting an innovative approach to fostering peace, the board appears to be a mechanism designed to consolidate control, wresting power from established organizations and alliances that have historically worked toward global stability.

In conclusion, the organizational framework of the proposed Board of Peace presents significant challenges, primarily regarding the roles of decision-makers versus planners. The criticism directed at established entities like the UN is not only detrimental but also indicates a broader agenda that seems to prioritize power over genuine collaboration. By including nations known for causing conflict and adopting a tone of arrogance, the initiative risks jeopardizing not just its legitimacy but also the prospects for meaningful global peace. For any peace initiative to succeed, it must be rooted in humility, inclusiveness, and a sincere commitment to dialogue—qualities that seem to be absent in the current proposal.

As we contemplate the future of international peacekeeping, it is essential to center efforts on collaboration and respect for existing frameworks, rather than attempting to supersede them.

Donald C. Bolduc