President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace initiative was hyped up to the stars upon its launch, with some suggesting it could possibly replace the United Nations, but as two legal scholars argued for The Hill this week, all it has really done is expose the “all hat, no cattle” trend that has summed up his entire presidency so far.
Initially pitched as an entity that would manage the reconstruction of the Gaza region, by the time it was officially launched in January at the World Economic Forum, Trump’s Board of Peace had evolved into a more wide-ranging peacekeeping organization. Despite its ambitions, the board’s invitations were turned down by most major Western democracies, with its starting line-up heavily comprised of countries led by dictators or which have a noted history of human rights abuses. Critics have alleged that the initiative — which requires a steep fee for entry and which Trump will lead as chairman even after leaving office — has been nothing more than another way to funnel money to the president.
In a Sunday piece for The Hill, David Wippman, the emeritus president of Hamilton College, and Glenn C. Altschuler, the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University, wrote that, in its five months of existence, the Board of Peace has “produced little beyond a charter and a few security personnel.” This, they argued further, exposes a common theme across much of what Trump has done since returning to the White House: talk big, dominate headlines, deliver little.
“The gap between rhetoric and reality illustrates a key feature of Trump’s presidency,” the duo explained. “Although he claimed he would ‘govern by a simple motto: Promises made, promises kept,’ in his administration, a promise is often the achievement. It grabs headlines, dominates the news cycle, distracts from setbacks elsewhere, and allows Trump to promote himself. By the time it’s clear how little has changed, Trump, the media and most Americans have moved on.”
Of the $17 billion promised for Gaza reconstruction at the inaugural board meeting, “only $23 million has materialized,” the duo noted, “and no major reconstruction or security contracts have been awarded.” Similarly, “a 20,000-strong International Stabilization Force” announced as a way to provide security during reconstruction efforts currently “consists of a commander and four Moroccan officers,” with the original plans withering “in the face of concerns over the U.S.-Iran war, rules of engagement, legal authority and financing, as well as Trump’s insistence that no American troops would enter Gaza.”
“The Board of Peace, then, is best understood as a paradigmatic example of a grandiose, self-serving, bait-and-switch public relations strategy that wastes time, energy and money, leaves urgent domestic problems unaddressed, and undermines America’s credibility abroad,” Wippman and Altschuler concluded. “Let the buyer beware.”