The US is reportedly discussing plans to extend the reach of its newly launched “Board of Peace”, created to oversee Gaza’s post-conflict reconstruction, to other major global conflict zones. The idea has stirred interest and concern among diplomats and governments, especially as talks focus on Ukraine, Venezuela, and perhaps other areas affected by long-running crises.
The Board of Peace was formally established on 15 January 2026, under UN Security Council Resolution 2803, to help manage Gaza’s recovery after years of war. It is chaired by US President Donald Trump and includes prominent figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former UK PM Tony Blair, special envoys and international leaders.
What is the Board of Peace?
The Board of Peace is a new international body designed to support the administration, reconstruction and economic recovery of the Gaza Strip following a devastating conflict that erupted in 2023. It operates alongside a Palestinian technocratic committee responsible for civil governance. Trump has called it “the greatest and most prestigious board ever assembled at any time, any place.”
Unlike traditional peacekeeping or reconstruction efforts, the board blends diplomatic oversight with reconstruction and development mandates. Its creation was backed by the United Nations but driven largely by US diplomacy.
Why US Expanding the Board of Peace Beyond Gaza?
Senior US officials and diplomats say the Trump administration views the Board of Peace as a model for addressing other conflicts. Some discussions suggest it could serve not just as a reconstruction body but also as a mediating or supervisory entity in diplomatic efforts, especially for prolonged global tensions.
One focus is on Ukraine, where international efforts to resolve the war with Russia have stalled. A senior Kyiv official described proposals for a similar body to be involved in monitoring peace plan implementation between Ukraine, Russia and Western partners.
Another conflict under consideration is Venezuela, where political turmoil persists following the US capture of Nicolás Maduro. Broadening the board’s mandate here could involve diplomacy and reconstruction support, though details remain unclear.
Diplomatic Reactions and Concerns
The potential expansion of the Board of Peace’s remit has generated mixed reactions. Some Western and Arab diplomats express caution, worried that the body’s prominence could undermine traditional multilateral institutions like the United Nations. One unnamed Arab diplomat noted that the concept of using the board as a parallel alternative to the UN has raised eyebrows.
Critics also question how effective or legitimate an expanded Board of Peace would be in mediating conflicts far beyond its original mandate. Many argue that diplomatic legitimacy and inclusiveness are key to lasting peace, elements deeply rooted in UN-led processes.
Supporters, however, believe a reimagined board could fill gaps left by slow global diplomacy, offering new ways to bridge negotiations in Ukraine and help stabilize deeply divided nations, if implemented carefully and with buy-in from key stakeholders.
What’s Next for the Board of Peace?
US officials have hinted that further announcements on the board’s role and membership could come at major international forums, such as the World Economic Forum in Davos. There, policymakers and world leaders often unveil new initiatives and agreements.
For now, the Board of Peace remains focused on Gaza, where reconstruction and governance challenges demand significant attention. If the expansion discussions proceed, however, the board could evolve into a broader peace coordination body, a development that could reshape how the world tackles complex conflicts.
What Does This Mean for Global Diplomacy?
If the Board of Peace becomes active beyond Gaza, it could signal a shift in how the US approaches global conflict resolution — moving toward more direct, leadership-driven frameworks rather than relying solely on traditional multilateral mechanisms.
Whether this approach will win widespread international support or deepen geopolitical tensions remains a key question on the global stage.
