Trump's new world order: Board of Peace

https://x.com/SuppressedNws1/status/2013972300945617385

Suppressed News.

@SuppressedNws1

 Gaza as the test case for a post UN World Order

The proposed Gaza Board of Peace is not an isolated initiative. It is best understood as part of a broader strategic project. Donald Trump does not seek to reform the United Nations. He seeks to replace it.

The UN system is built on law, formal equality between states, and institutional accountability. Trump’s alternative model is built on deals, money, hierarchy, and coercive leverage. Where the UN relies on treaties and norms, this model relies on capital contributions, political loyalty, and centralized control.

Gaza is the test case.

The proposed governance architecture strips away UN law and substitutes technocratic management. UNRWA is dismantled. Refugee status and rights are replaced with conditional aid. UN peacekeeping is rejected in favor of a U.S. led International Stabilization Force. The legal framing of occupation is removed entirely.

Under this model there is no occupation law, no right of return, no independent investigations, and no binding human rights enforcement. What remains is a system run by appointed technocrats, major donors, and a security force designed to impose stability rather than adjudicate rights.

This is not peacekeeping. It is managed control. Empire rebranded as stability.

The Gaza Board of Peace as Institutional Design

The structure of the Board of Peace reflects this logic. Donald Trump would chair the body directly, controlling membership, approving decisions, and overseeing funds. Nickolay Mladenov, former UN Middle East coordinator, would serve as the chief executive managing daily oversight.

Senior U.S. figures including Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Aryeh Lightstone, and Josh Gruenbaum would drive strategy, governance capacity building, reconstruction, and investment coordination.

International participation includes figures such as Tony Blair, Ajay Banga of the World Bank, and financier Marc Rowan, alongside regional representatives from Turkey, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt. Local Gaza administration is nominally represented through Ali Sha’ath.

Security would be handled by an International Stabilization Force under U.S. General Jasper Jeffers, with authority over demilitarization, border control, and aid delivery.

According to reporting, permanent membership on the board would require a minimum contribution of one billion dollars. States paying this amount in the first year would be exempt from term limits, effectively purchasing permanent influence. Governance becomes transactional. Access is bought. Authority flows from capital.

Why the UN Is Being Bypassed

UN peacekeeping and a U.S. led stabilization force are not interchangeable mechanisms. They perform fundamentally different functions.

UN peacekeeping missions monitor ceasefires, require host state consent, operate under restrictive rules of engagement, and are mandated to report human rights violations. They treat Gaza as occupied territory under international law. Their processes are slow, consensus driven, and vulnerable to Security Council vetoes. Enforcement is limited but legal accountability is built in.

A U.S. led stabilization force is coercive by design. It enforces disarmament, conducts raids, arrests, and seizures, and operates under centralized command. Deployment is fast and coalition partners are hand picked. Legal exposure is minimized through bilateral agreements. Political ownership of outcomes is explicit.

The United States avoids the UN framework in Gaza for clear reasons. A UN mission would lock Gaza into occupation law. It would trigger mandatory human rights monitoring and reporting. Violations would have to be documented. Evidence could feed international legal proceedings. Reconstruction would become a legal obligation rather than discretionary donor aid. Russia and China would gain leverage through the Security Council. Gaza would be framed as an occupation crisis, not a post war development project.

Why Occupation Law Is the Central Battleground

Occupation law applies when a power exercises effective control over a territory, even without permanent troop deployment. Control over borders, airspace, sea access, population registries, or civilian life is sufficient to trigger it.

Once a territory is deemed occupied, the controlling power has legal duties, not rights. Civilians must be protected. Food, water, and medical care must be ensured. Humanitarian access must be allowed. Collective punishment, mass displacement, and permanent political or demographic reshaping are prohibited.

For the United States and Israel, this framework is dangerous. A UN led process would treat Gaza as occupied territory. Human rights monitoring would be mandatory. Violations would have to be reported. Reconstruction would be governed by law, not charity. Third states aiding violations could face legal exposure.

Occupation law shifts Gaza from a security problem to a legal responsibility regime. It limits coercive power, enforces accountability, and undermines narrative control.

Why Replacing the UN With a “Board of Peace” Is Dangerous

Trump’s proposed Board of Peace is not about fixing the UN. It is about replacing it with a very different system.

The UN, despite its flaws, is based on rules. Countries are formally equal. Authority comes from treaties and international law. Even powerful states are at least somewhat constrained by reporting requirements, investigations, and legal obligations.

The Board of Peace model works differently.

Power is concentrated at the top. Decisions are made by a chair, major donors, and a security force. There are no binding legal rules, no independent oversight, and no real accountability. What matters is political alignment and money.

Influence becomes something you pay for. Permanent seats tied to billion dollar contributions turn international governance into a marketplace. Wealthy states shape outcomes. Poorer states are expected to accept them.

Security is enforced, not negotiated. A U.S. led stabilization force prioritizes control and compliance over consent. This may reduce violence in the short term, but it creates resentment and weak, dependent governance in the long term.

Accountability is intentionally avoided. By bypassing the UN, human rights reporting and investigations are removed from the system. Legal exposure disappears. Power justifies itself.

Most importantly, this model allows control without responsibility. By rejecting occupation law, outside actors can run territory without accepting legal duties to the population. That undermines a core protection of international humanitarian law.

If applied globally, this would not bring order. It would fragment the international system, encourage rival blocs, and replace universal rules with patronage and coercion.

The Broader Implication

Globally, this model marks the erosion of universal governance. Membership becomes selective. Influence is purchased. Human rights become optional. Allies receive immunity while adversaries face discipline.

What is being tested in Gaza is not simply a post war arrangement. It is an alternative world order architecture. One where law is replaced by management, rights by aid, and accountability by enforced stability.

This is not peacekeeping. It is the normalization of control without consent, dressed in the language of reconstruction and order.

https://x.com/SuppressedNws1/status/2013972300945617385