Front Burner - What’s Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ really about?

Episode Date: January 23, 2026

Donald Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ says it has a plan for the future of Gaza. Critics say that strategy is full of holes, and that the true intention of the board extends far beyond the war ravaged territory. Today we look at how a U.S. 20-point plan for a post-war Gaza evolved into a body that some fear could undermine the United Nations and further erode international order.Jayme Poisson speaks with Hugh Lovatt, a Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations based in London.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts 

All right, picture this as your childhood. You live in New York. Your dad is a famous jazz musician and you have your own TV show. That was the life of Nat and Alex Wolfe. They grew up starring in a show called The Naked Brothers Band. On cue with Tom Power, Nat and Alex Wolf will tell you how the fame they experienced wasn't always pretty and how they're reflecting on this unusual life for their new record. I'm Tali O'SLanger, guest hosting while Tom is away.

You can hear that conversation with Nat and Alex Wolf on cue with Tom Power wherever you get your Podcasts. This is a CBC podcast. Well, this is a very exciting day. Hey, everybody. It's Jamie. Today, how a 20-point plan containing the U.S. vision for a post-war Gaza has evolved into what Donald Trump calls, the greatest and most prestigious board ever assembled. We just created the Board of Peace, which I think is going to be amazing. I wish the United Nations could do more.

We wish we didn't need a board of peace, but the United Nations... And you know, with all the wars I said... It's a new international group to deal with global conflict, with Trump as the ultimate power broker. We're getting into the backstory behind this boarded piece and asking why a group that Trump says might replace the UN was legitimized by the UN Security Council itself. So, is Trump's board of peace a true threat to the UN?

To talk about all of that, I am joined by Hugh Levitt. He is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. based in London. Hugh, hey, great to have you on the show. Hey, thanks for having me. So you and I are talking around noon, Eastern Standard Time. On Thursday, I feel the need to timestamp

literally every conversation I'm having these days. There was a signing ceremony that took place on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos today to formalize Trump's new Board of Peace. But I want to thank you all for being here yesterday. We had a incredibly successful visit with many of the world's top business leaders, the best, the biggest, most successful, and foreign heads of state.

And now we have one of the most important meetings of all the official formation of what is known as the Board of Peace. Before we get into the board itself and what it is and why it has set off alarm bells around the world, I want to understand how the UN got into this problem in the first place because it didn't come out of nowhere, Right. And let's begin in September of last year when the war in Gaza had really reached this moment of international tension when the credibility of global institutions was being tested. And can you tell me more about what was happening in Gaza that set the stage for this new board? Sure. So the even bigger backstory, of course, as we all know, is Gaza was and has been in the midst of a pretty brutal war since Hamas launched its attack on Israel in October, 2018. 23. And so since then there's been numerous, largely U.S.-led efforts to try to reach a ceasefire. The Trump administration had an early win straight off the bat when President Trump returned to office in January. A first ceasefire was reached.

Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has tonight thanked President Biden and Donald Trump for helping secure the deal. With just days to go before he leaves office, President Biden tonight gave details of the ceasefire. which begins on Sunday. Phase one will last six weeks. It includes a full and complete ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the populated areas of Gaza, and the release of a number of hostages held by Hamas, including women.

And that quickly fell apart due to Israeli calculations. Israel decided they hadn't finished in Gaza, went back in March of last year. So then Q a renewed search for a ceasefire. and gradually what that search for ceasefire turned into was Trump's 20-point plan, something that was far more complicated than previous US plans to resolve Gaza, trying to take into account more Israeli considerations about how to deal with Hamas, but also trying to block out the Palestinian Authority from returning

and this huge dilemma about who would take over and how you do more of a staged withdrawal in terms of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, but also then trying to lock in Israeli gains against So very complicated. And what that U.S. Trump-led effort resulted in is what has become now known as the 20-point plan, which you alluded to. And one last piece of information on a 20-point plan, which I think will be important for the rest of our conversation, is that was formulated last summer. And there was lots of different cooks, I guess you could say, that contributed towards this plan. some of this was of Israeli thinking, some of it of Trump's own thinking, but also there was a lot of Arab and European thinking that went into it. And so the result was a text that had some positive points and did reflect some positive, I guess you could say US concessions in terms of acknowledging a two-state solution, the need for Israel to withdraw.

but also in a way to probably to ensure Israeli participation, there was a lot of lack of clarity, a lot of ambiguity, a lot was left unsaid. And so we had a text, the plan, in three phases that had a lot of holes in it. Hamas must have no role in future governance of the region. Instead, a temporary Palestinian governing body

would be established, supervised by a Board of Peace led by US President Donald Trump. that we put forward today is focused on ending the war immediately, getting all of our hostages back, getting everything back. I appreciate that was a very long backstory, but that is, I think, important to know how we got here. So the 20-point plan was kind of okay in some ways, but it was missing a lot.

And the question was, how do you actually then move it forward? And the answer that most people seem to have is, let's enshrine it in UN Security Council Resolution, and that turned into UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which was passed in November formally establishing the Board of Peace. I want to come back to 2803 in one second, but just situate the Board of Peace and the 20-point plan for me. Like it introduced this idea of a, quote, new international transitional body. Yeah, the Board of Peace as a term is something that seems to have been borne out, actually through the engagement of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

So it seemed to come out a bit from nowhere. However, some of the ideas had been around for a while in other quarters. So Arabs and Palestinians had been calling for international protection for Gaza and the West Bank. So there was already this idea about that maybe there could be some sort of international mission. There was a general understanding, I think, in most quarters, that there would need to be an international intervention force, or peacekeeping force or whatever you want to call it, that could also come in and ensure that, you know,

the fight did it resume and do peace, at least peace monitoring. And then finally, again, going back a few years now, because Israel would not allow the return of the PA, there was also this idea of setting up a technocratic Palestinian committee to govern Gaza. And so these different ideas, you know, this idea of international supervision, a Palestinian technocratic committee,

an international stabilization force. They kind of all have been around for a bit but ended up being repackaged under the title of a Board of Peace. And how is Trump talking about it at the time? Not too much at the time. Like I think all these sort of Trumpian things, it starts out as a bit of a slogan.

My plan calls for the creation of a new international oversight body, the Board of Peace, we call it, the Board of Peace. Sort of a beautiful name, the board. And, you know, that's repeat. but without actually any sense about what it actually means. You know, it's a slogan without much substance.

And so this was an issue when it came to the vote of the UN Security Council. Members of the UN Security Council were being asked to support a text and the concept that they knew was problematic in terms of its lack of clarity, a potential contradiction of international law, the potential to be distorted. but they didn't really see an alternative. If they had rejected the resolution or not endorsed it, they were worried that the Americans would either walk away or actually be even more unilateral in trying to move things forward in Gaza. And then, but just quickly on the Board of Peace,

in I guess like September, October, November, it was very much mentioned in the context of Gaza. But then that for the first time you started to see Trump test out, the side that maybe it could be used somewhere else. And it was quite quickly then also referenced in the text for potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Also, this mention of a board of peace that could be involved. So I think that's kind of the beginning of this becoming a little bit more than just a Gaza-focused body. Tell me more now about the resolution, 2803, right, by the

Security Council. With those in favor of the draft resolution, please raise their hand. The United States wanted the UN Security Council to endorse Donald Trump's 20-point Gaza ceasefire agreement, and that is exactly what the U.S. got. Today's resolution represents another significant step towards a stable Gaza. By passing this motion, what did the members of the Security Council ultimately set in motion here. So the UN Security Council Resolution, I mean, the text itself

is almost copy paste of the 20-point plan. And I think I've already been going on enough about all the issues and the lack of clarity. But I think in and so, and again, to be very clear, you know, European countries, Arab diplomats

I was speaking at the time, were absolutely aware of these issues and the dilemmas they faced. Their hope was that by voting for it, they would keep the Americans engaged, but then they'd be able to subsequently engage with President Trump and his advisors to positively shape the application or implementation of the resolution in a way that is far more,

at least in my view, and I guess in their view, far more positive. And this is what they did over the summer in my, you know, when I was setting the scene. There was a previous sort of U.S.-Israeli position which Arab and European engagement was able to moderate and eventually turn into that 20-point plan. And so, and I agree with this, that was seen as relatively successful, despite still producing this plan with all its issues.

So I guess Europeans and Arabs were hoping that after the resolution was passed, they could continue to keep Trump on side and move forward more positively. But I think now things have really, like, in the last, few weeks and months is a sense now that just the wheels have come off the bus, as it were, or the Trump bus. And so a lot of the European efforts to try to moderate and restrain President Trump on Gaza and other issues is now suddenly not working. And so suddenly this Board of Peace has turned into a bit of a monster, really. That has very little to do with Gaza. Yeah. And just do that piece for me, right? How we get from the resolution to this, this charter

that was signed on Thursday morning. So the resolution envisages quite a bit happening. So it divides the ceasefire implementation into three phases. With timelines that are relatively clear, but with milestones, which are much less clear. So it's less clear, you know, what the different sides need to do concretely beyond, you know, some slogans. So, for example, phase two, which we've now. dissentered requires ham-master disarm. What does that mean in practice? What is, you know, what does it need to disarm? These are huge, hugely complex questions, which need to be negotiated

between all the sides. And there's a different discussion, but I think, you know, progress can be made, but it's not sufficient to click your fingers or write it in a resolution. It requires a lot of work and effort. And that's just yet one more example of the problems of the 20-point plan. It sets down certain principles, but doesn't really flesh them out in terms of how to reach them. That's one example. Second example, you know, Israel needs to ultimately withdraw from Gaza. Israel said it's not going to do that. It needs to open up the Rafa crossing on the Egyptian border. It has not done that. It needs to allow an increase humanitarian aid. It has not done that. So anyway, this is important to be in mind in that this is a far bigger issue than the Board of Peace per se.

and there has been some progress on some issues and far less progress on most issues. Palestinians across Gaza are questioning Israel's commitment to the second phase of the US-backed ceasefire, but many of the requirements in phase one still haven't been met. Israel was to stop all attacks on the Gaza Strip, but the strikes have continued killing at least 449 Palestinians

since the pact was signed. Israeli forces have not retreated to the agreed-upon so-called yellow line. Instead, Palestinians have been squeezed into smaller living zones, zones extending Israel's area of control. The Rafa crossing was to be reopened in both directions to facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid. Israel continues to restrict the entry of aid and has banned many aid organizations from operating. But over the past month, there's been sort of two points of attention, really. One is this international stabilization force that I mentioned, who would contribute and what would the mandate be? And

After the UN resolution was passed, there was a hope, and I certainly had this hope, that we could move forward to start to clarify this in terms of what the mandate is. Is it enforcing Hamas disarmament, which few countries want to do? Because it means fighting Hamas. Or is it trying to, again, to supervise a decommissioning process? The second point is the Palestinian Technocratic Committee. But again, there hasn't been that much progress to date. Now, finally, because Trump wanted to unveil everything at Davos,

suddenly we've seen the flurry of activity. But the bigger issue now, which is the Board of Peace, is you have these different ideas, right? The International Civilization Force, the Palestinian National Committee, you kind of also know you need to do the reconstruction. And so how do you actually manage that? And the UN resolution, I guess,

envisaged the Board of Peace managing that. But without this understanding of what looks like in practice. And so that lack of clarity or that, I guess you could say, that empty space has now been filled by the most sort of, I guess, you could say, maximalist version, interpretation of what a Board of Peace could be. And so basically these different points have all converged today in Davos, all that set to the backdrop of a huge geopolitical moment, which the Ball of Peace is now sort of amplifying. If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft is flawed?

In 1999, four Russian apartment buildings were bombed, hundreds killed. But even now, we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories. I'm Helena Merriman, and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss the first? time. The History Bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Sticking with Gaza for a moment, I want to broaden out with you in a second, but, you know, I was watching Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, unveil what he called a master plan for the new

enclave this morning with economic zones, timelines and pretty glitzy projections of like a Riviera-style reconstruction for the territory. Rothel will start with. This will show a lot of workforce housing. We think this could be done in two, three years. We've already started removing the rubble and doing some of the demolition. And then New Gaza. It could be a hope.

It could be a destination, have a lot of industry, and really be a place that the people there can thrive, have great employment. Once this starts going, we think there should be 100% full employment and opportunity for everybody there. And just who exactly is this plan for who has consented to it? Yeah. Absolutely. And the polite response to the unveiling of the plan would be to say it's pretty nuts. Because it's nuts, because if you actually look at the plan, it's creating a completely alternative political, economic, and social reality to what exists in Gaza at the moment. It's literally, I think the Latin expression is tablarasa, like it's completely pushing everything off of the table and creating a whole new reality. In the beginning, we were toying with the idea of saying, let's build a free zone, and then we have a Hamas zone.

And then we said, you know what, let's just plan for catastrophic success. We, Hamas signed a deal demilitarized. That is what we are going to enforce. People ask us what our plan B is. We do not have a plan B. Which clearly, well, I say clearly, most likely cannot work even with Trump behind it because it's so radical and we require like bulldozing basically everything in Gaza. And of course, Israel has already done quite a bit of that. but much, but, you know, still, some of Gaza's still left.

So this idea that by trying to create a new reality, you can suddenly make Palestinians forget their nationalism or the resistance to the occupation. And, you know, this whole conversation about UNRWA is also one part of it, that if you get rid of UNRWA, you get rid of the Palestinian refugee camps. Palestinians will forget the desire to return to what is now present-day Israel. So you have that. You probably have also a little bit, this sort of,

Right-wing greater Israel settlement discourse also playing out, which is there's a part of the Israeli political system and part of it is in government that actually wants to return to Gaza at some point, which is an animating force behind this sort of desire to demolish or subjugate Gaza. So that's the Israeli influence. The American influence, again, I guess influenced to a certain extent by the Israelis, but it's also, I think, influenced by this. real estate mentality. This idea that if we just throw enough money at it, we let the U.S. private sector deal with it, then we'll do something amazing. And this is what Trump has himself been often saying. And we've developed ways to redevelop Gaza. Gaza, as President Trump's been saying, has amazing potential. And this is for the people of Gaza. When you look at the slides that Kushner showed today in Davos,

we've seen these same slides been used during the first Trump administration. And when when Trump presented his peace plan, which had a big Gaza annex and the same sort of very outlandish ideas. And there's been, since the renewed war in Gaza, there's been a lot of other ideas about creating humanitarian bubbles, which in effect would somehow exclude Hamas. You would have deregicalized Palestinians living in under, quote-unquote, the protection of foreign contractors subject to biometric controls. So the point is, I think it's a very dystopian reality. And so finally answer your question, when you look at the Board of Peace and it's executive boards, you do see a lot of people, well, I say a lot, you see a number of private

individuals who do not represent countries per se, but actually private investment companies. And these investment companies quite active in real estate. And so when you put together all these very complicated strands, it's the idea about redoing Gaza, investing in real estate, having the Americans own it. You look at who's on the board. You really do get the sense that, A, what the Board of Peace is ultimately aiming at or some of the individuals is not really what's best for Garzan

and what Garlands want or empowering Garlands. It's actually how do you make a buck off of Gaza? And I'm very sad to say that. I've heard you describe this board like a company and describe it also as a massive oligarchy network. Together we are in a position to have an incredible chance. I don't even call it a chance. I think it's going to happen.

To end decades of suffering, stop generations of hatred and bloodshed and forge a beautiful, everlasting, and glorious peace for that region and for the whole region of the world, because I'm calling the world a region. The world is a region. One thing I do want to bring up here, we've been talking so much about Gaza, and this is really where the Board of Peace originated from in the charter.

I mean, they signed the charter Thursday, but this draft of the charter leaked earlier in the week. They don't even mention Gaza, right? And what does that tell you? It tells you everything you need to know in terms of how this A has grown into something that is now, I think, more question of a global order rather than Gaza ceasefire in terms of, you know, how is Trump trying to position. the Board of Peace to not just allow him, in my view, to project his own authority over the global system, but potentially also re-engineer the global system in a way that is more in line with Trump's own impulses, whether that's sort of a real estate business impulse, whether that's kind of a more of a 19th century geopolitical vision of great power politics and might as right.

So anyway, it's morphed in stuff that it's just, I mean, in some ways, fascinating, if also very scary in terms of the implications for everything that's happening at the moment. But what I should just say is, you know, that basically if you look at the Board of Peace and, you know, this idea of the Board of Peace as a Trump company, the main Board of Peace is, to me, very problematic and has nothing to do as we've been talking about with the UN Security Council resolution that started this all. And I think it's quite right that Canada and European stayed away from it. But, um, Like any good company, there's like a shell company or like a spin-off company to the main board of peace.

And that's the actual Gaza bit. And that's the actual bit that is in line with the UN Security Council resolution and is very important, even if I still have misgivings about some of the bits and pieces. So it has a, you know, this spinoff company has a Gaza executive board and it has that Palestinian National Committee. So, you know, they are very much, especially the Gaza and committee, is right at the bottom of the, of the, of the, food chain. But nevertheless, you know, those are the bits that I think Canada and European should be working from the outside to try to support and to strengthen. Yeah. I mean, just to note, we haven't totally distanced ourselves from this board yet. Our Prime Minister is still considering

joining. But, you know, it just on these kind of subcommittees and stuff, like, just for people listening, you have this main board of peace with this founding executive board. And on it are people like Tony Blair, real estate developer turned U.S. envoy, Steve Whitkoff, Jared Kushner, Mark Rowan, billionaire, U.S. financier. And then you have Trump, right, who is the indefinite chairman of this board, as I understand it from this draft charter. And he has all of these powers, right? It allows him to remove member states, a decision that could only be overturned by two-thirds majority of members. It appears to give him a veto on the board's decisions. And it also provides him with the exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities as necessary or appropriate to fulfill the board's peace missions,

such as the executive committee that will deal with Gaza or other similar boards created for other conflicts, right? So I take your point that there's kind of these offshoot happening, but it seems to concentrate so much power in Trump that he could just get rid of this any time that he wants, right? Am I reading this wrong? No, you're absolutely right. It's a mess. And because also, when you really get into the weeds for the Gaza Executive Board and the National, the Palestinian National Committee, as you said entirely right, Trump has, at least according to the Board of Peace's charter, has full authority over those bodies. Yet, you have two other sources of legitimacy and responsibility for those two bodies, I would argue. One is, again, the UN Security Council that's set it up. And by the way,

at least theoretically, the Board of Peace still has to report to the UN Security Council on a regular basis about its activities when it comes to Gaza, because that's in the resolution. And so that's the second authority is the UN Security Council. The third one is, depending on your point of view, the state of Palestine slash Palestinian Authority slash the people, the Palestinian people who have sovereignty in Gaza. And so if you see this Gaza Executive Board or the National Committee taking decisions at the behest of the Board of Peace and President Trump and going against the decisions of the UN Security Council or of the state of Palestine, then that's, yeah, that's a huge mess, both legally, but also administratively.

And I'm pretty sure we're headed in that direction at some point. I mean, if we haven't yet reached that point, I think in part, it's also that President Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, is staying out of the way for now and is in any case really marginalized in this process. But also the UN Security Council, I think, is still, like everyone, I should say, the European members of the Security Council, like France, the UK, and also the Russians, the Chinese, et cetera, also processing all of this drama like we are. But I'm sure in the coming weeks and months, this is going to be a huge issue about, you know,

who do these Gaza subsidiaries report really at the end of the day. You know, Russia and China have invited to be members of this board as well. I mean, there's been a lot of headlines about how countries can pay a billion dollars to buy a permanent seat on this board. It's not yet clear whether anybody is going to be paying this, but the Board of Peace has basically been criticized as sort of this pay-to-play imperial court, an international version of Trump's like Mar-a-Lago club. And I just wonder if we could also play out a couple of other scenarios here, right? Like, if Russia joins this board, does it put pressure on Ukraine to trade territory for stability? What about China and Taiwan? Yeah, absolutely. And I think this is one of the huge risks of the Board of Peace in terms of how it's set up. Now, I should be clear that I think personally having, you know, diplomacy requires people to talk to everyone, right? And it requires us to talk to the Russians. The Russians have a seat on the UN Security Council. I think that's very good. When you're doing diplomacy, it's a slightly different dynamic. The problem here with the Board of Peace is there's not that many members. Trump is easily influenced by people around him. him. And let's be absolutely clear, he tends to be more influenced by the Russians than by the Europeans. Because each member of, then the state of the Board of Peace has like one vote each,

and it's a pure majority decision, all it would take for is, you know, for some of the more liberal countries to be able to be coordinated, influence Trump, get a few people on side, and you have the Board of Peace suddenly signing off on territorial, on Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia. Now, thankfully, the Board of Peace does not have yet the international standing that the UN Security Council has. But I think it would still be, will obviously be very problematic for the Board of Peace took those positions and the US took those positions, but it would also be extremely embarrassing, I think, for any country to be on that board and to have to kind of show up to the meeting, which then basically gives away Ukrainian territory, or indeed, indeed gives away Greenland or, God forbid, Canada or any other country. I mean, these are things

that sound completely unproensible and ridiculous. But this is the world that we are, at least currently seem to be living in. Yeah. And just like even if the board of peace succeeds partially, right, you know, does it also kind of encourage others to build their own parallel institutions, fragmented global governance, pushing to hollow out the United Nations, right? Like, as it moves along. Is that just like the ultimate risk here? Well, I think we should be fair in saying that, you know, there's nothing per se illegal in creating a new organization and there's plenty of organizations in the world, right?

You have the G7, you have NATO, you have lots of regional organizations. So there's absolutely a place and indeed legitimacy for having these bodies. I think ultimately it comes down to what do they aspire to do. The problem with the Board of Peace is if it was really just about Gaza, I would have issues with it as we've been talking about. But, okay, it's confined to Gaza. If it was Ukraine, then again, you get in a conversation about some of the policy issues, but it's Ukraine. We're here, the problem is clearly the way that President Trump is presenting it, the way he's talking about it. this is quite clearly an effort maybe not to replace the UN, but to sideline it.

And that's a completely different order of magnitude in terms of seriousness. I don't think he can be successful because, well, at least for now, there aren't sufficient members. The Europeans are not there. The Russians, at least for now, are not there nor the Chinese. So we'll always be limited. But perhaps the problem is more in terms of not the success of this new Trumpian order, but the damage it will do to an already frail international liberal order, which, again, I should be very clear, was failing and falling apart before Trump's second administration for many reasons, the war in Ukraine, but also, let's be clear, our own Western responses to the war in Gaza and this idea of double standards.

So we all have some responsibility for the current state of affairs, but it does feel that we're at this very fragile moment, the last thing we need is now this alternative, US project that will, as you say, risk fragmenting much more and already fragmented global governance system. All right, Hugh, this was really interesting. Thank you so much for taking the time. Thank you. My pleasure. All right. That is all for today. Front burner was produced this week by Shannon Higgins, Kevin Sexton, Lauren Donnelly, Joytha Shankgupta, Karen Outtshorn, and McKenzie Cameron. Our intern is John Costello. Our YouTube producer is John Lee. Our music is by Joseph Shabas. Our senior producers are Imogen Burchard and Elaine Chow. Our executive producer is Nick McKay Blokos.

And I'm Jamie Poisson. Thank you so much for listening. And we'll talk to you next week. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.