Could Trump’s bid to become peacemaker-in-chief sideline the struggling UN?

“Together we are in a position to… end decades of suffering, stop generations of hatred and bloodshed, and forge a beautiful, lasting and glorious peace for that region and for the entire world region.”

This was the big promise made by US President Donald Trump when he opened his new peace council on the stage of the Davos Economic Forum this week.

A world with so much suffering and conflict desperately wants to believe him.

But for many observers and officials in capitals around the world, this is further evidence of Trump’s campaign to dismantle the post-war international architecture and replace it with new institutions – dominated by him.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned briefly on social media: “We will not allow anyone to manipulate us.”

But one of Trump’s biggest supporters in Europe, Viktor Orban, had effusive praise: “If Trump, peace.”

What exactly will this council, headed by Trump forever, do? Could this really be an attempt to build a miniature version of the United Nations?

This idea – born last year as part of a US-led effort to end the war in Gaza and endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution – now has a much grander, more global ambition. It revolves around the president.

In leaked details of the draft charter, he is Chairman of the Board of Directors for life, even after leaving his position. Under this Charter, its powers will be broad: the power to invite member states or not; Establishment or dissolution of subsidiary bodies; Authorizing him to appoint a successor whenever he decides to step down, or in the event of his inability.

If any other country wanted to become a permanent member, the price would be $1 billion (£740 million).

This latest bombshell falls in an already interesting month. In the space of just a few weeks, the United States has already arrested Venezuela’s leader, Trump’s threats and preparations for military action against Iran, and claims to acquire Greenland, sending shock waves through Europe and beyond.

Nineteen countries came to Davos for the opening of the Council from all corners of the compass – from Argentina to Azerbaijan, from the former Soviet republics to the Gulf monarchies. Many others are said to have “agreed to join.”

“In this group, I love every single one of them,” Trump smiled as he looked at the leaders and officials whose names are now on this board or the layers of executive agencies below him.

So far many potential members have politely objected.

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper explained, “This is about a treaty that raises much broader issues, and we also have concerns about President Putin being part of something that talks about peace.”

Trump says Russia is involved although the message from Moscow was that they were still “consulting with partners.”

“Under the current text,” Sweden replied, “we will not join.”

Norway’s diplomatic response was that “the proposal raises unanswered questions and requires further dialogue with Washington.”

Even a group of seven Muslim-majority countries, including six Arab countries, plus Turkey and Indonesia, made clear they were participating for a “just and lasting peace in Gaza,” including the reconstruction of the shattered enclave.

But the details leaked from the commission’s charter do not mention Gaza.

For some critics, including some countries reluctant to join, it is an arrogant project for a president who makes no secret of his obsession with winning the highest honor — the Nobel Peace Prize, which President Obama won in 2009 at the start of his first term in the White House.

World leaders realize that there may be a price to pay for not joining this new club.

“I will impose a 200% tariff on wine and champagne, and he will join, but he does not have to join.” This was the president’s rebuke of French President Emmanuel Macron by threatening to use his weapon of choice.

Only Slovenia said the quiet part out loud. Prime Minister Robert Golub expressed his concern clearly – it “dangerously interferes with the broader international system.”

Trump addressed this concern directly.

He explained to the crowded hall, commenting on every word he said: “Once this council is fully formed, we can do everything we want to do and we will do it in cooperation with the United Nations.”

But he likes to keep the world guessing.

A day earlier, when a Fox journalist asked him whether his board would replace the United Nations, he replied: “Well, it might be so. The United Nations has not been very helpful.”

Then he added, “I am a big fan of the potential of the United Nations, but it never lived up to its potential. The United Nations should have settled all the wars that I settled.”

The United Nations, with 193 members, has long lost its role as a major peacemaker.

When I interviewed Secretary-General António Guterres in October 2016, on the first day of his first term, just hours after the rare unanimous endorsement by the Security Council, he promised to “increase diplomatic efforts for peace.”

Over the past decade, UN efforts have been frustrated by the inertia of the Security Council, the growing number of spoilers and state sponsors in wars around the world, as well as the steady erosion of its standing vis-à-vis the world’s most powerful players, including the United States.

“We should all welcome Mr. Trump’s activism on ending wars,” says Martin Griffiths, a UN veteran who believes this new effort is “a clear reflection of the failure of the UN Security Council and the United Nations in general.”

But the former Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator warned: “What we have learned over the last 80 years, through many, many failures and chaos, we have learned the value of inclusion, of being representatives of the global community, not just friends of Mr. Trump.”

Guterres himself recently lamented that “there are those who believe that the rule of law should be replaced by the law of force.”

When asked in an interview with the BBC’s Al Youm program about Trump’s constant claim that he had ended eight wars, he replied matter-of-factly, “It’s a ceasefire.”

Some have already collapsed.

The tentative peace deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo quickly collapsed, Cambodia and Thailand began hurling accusations and more across their borders, and India objected to Trump’s central role in ending its conflict with Pakistan.

But only Trump’s strong mediation can end the 12-day war between Iran and Israel.

His personal participation finally secured a ceasefire in the devastating confrontation in Gaza last October, alleviating the suffering of Palestinians and the suffering of Israeli hostages. His decision to finally focus fully on this disaster, partly in response to the urging of his closest Arab allies and grieving Israeli families, led him to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas to reach an agreement.

But even the first test facing the council – moving from the first phase of the deal to ending the Gaza war – remains extremely difficult. So far, as this new council is slowly taking shape, it includes Netanyahu, who has pledged to stop the creation of a Palestinian state, and Arab leaders who insist that the only path to sustainable peace must lead to Palestinian self-rule and an end to the Israeli occupation.

The other major war on the agenda of America and Europe is Ukraine. President Zelensky has refrained from sitting at the same table with Moscow and Minsk.

Underneath this council are three layers, most of which focus on Gaza – an Executive Council, a Gaza Executive Council, and the National Committee for Gaza Administration.

They bring together a mix of senior American officials and billionaires, as well as respected former politicians and former UN envoys who know Gaza well, along with Arab ministers, intelligence chiefs, and Palestinian technocrats.

Some critics even credit the president with putting an old battle of a different kind on the table — the persistent demand for reform of the post-war UN structure, including a Security Council that no longer conforms to the global political map of the major powers in each region. It is simply not fit for purpose.

“Perhaps an unintended good consequence of what Trump has done is that these issues will be brought back to the top of the international agenda,” said Mark Malloch Brown, former deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.

“We are coming out of a period where UN leadership was very weak and I think this could be a call to action.”

Ironically, Trump’s quest to lead the world towards peace comes at a time when discussions are escalating in many capitals to replace Guterres, who will complete his second term at the end of this year.

The president, who previously declared he could end the Ukrainian war in a single day, has learned in his final year in power that peacemaking is a long and risky process.

But today he praised the Middle East region, where only “small fires” are now burning. He promised that a settlement in Ukraine “will come very soon.”

He relished his new role as a potential leader of the peacemakers.

“This is for the world,” he shouted.

Top image credit: Reuters

BBC in depth It’s the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and in-depth reporting on the biggest issues of the day. Emma Barnett and John Simpson present their selection of the most thought-provoking in-depth readings and analysis, every Saturday. Sign up for the newsletter here