Trump's 'Board of Peace' — A Familiar Script for Perpetual War
The Hill recently floated the idea of a Trump-era 'Board of Peace' to replace the United Nations. Apparently, the UN is too 'bloated' and 'ineffective' for Washington's tastes, despite being founded on the ashes of global conflict in 1945. One might wonder if ‘ineffective’ is code for ‘doesn’t rubber-stamp US foreign policy quickly enough,’ a grievance often aired by neoconservatives and
unilateralists for decades. This isn't a novel concept, of course. Historically, calls to bypass multilateral institutions often precede attempts to consolidate unchallenged influence or justify military adventurism. Think back to John Bolton, a consistent critic of the UN, who famously declared that a Security Council resolution was merely 'extra credit' before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The cost
of that 'extra credit' disregard? Over a million lives and trillions of dollars. A ‘Board of Peace’ implies a selective, perhaps private, council determining global affairs. Such an initiative invariably benefits specific actors, often those in the military-industrial complex and their political allies who prefer backroom deals over public debate and international consensus. It's a convenient
framing for those who seek to redefine 'peace' as whatever aligns with their immediate geopolitical and economic interests. So, when you hear whispers of 'alternative' international bodies, remember that history teaches us these are often just new packaging for old imperial ambition, designed to bypass accountability and concentrate power and profit into fewer, more compliant hands. Same script,