Who holds Trump accountable for Gaza鈥檚 future?
The first question to ask about Thursday鈥檚 inaugural meeting of President Donald Trump鈥檚 Board of Peace is this: How will this new international body, initially set up to govern postwar Gaza, be held accountable?
The answer 鈥� still a work in process 鈥� could possibly help define a new era of integrity and trust in how humanity cooperates in working on shared problems, from the need for a Palestinian state to climate change.
The Trump-designed board, whose 26 members are largely Arab and Muslim countries and include Israel, was heartily endorsed by the United Nations Security Council in November. Yet the exact responsibilities of the U.N. itself remain vague and ambiguous. In addition, the war-weary people of a divided Gaza have little or no say over the board鈥檚 decisions. And Mr. Trump has near-absolute power: He holds permanent chairmanship and even hints at expanding the board鈥檚 role to other conflicts.
If Mr. Trump will be answerable to anyone for the board鈥檚 actions, it would be American voters. Come the midterm elections in November, a return to violence or a successful start to a peaceful Gaza might help determine if Republicans keep control of Congress. After all, Mr. Trump won the 2024 presidential election in part by campaigning on the shambolic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the Biden-Harris administration in 2021.
Mr. Trump has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from relying on the U.N. and many other global institutions to focus on building coalitions of countries to solve problems 鈥� often with a great deal of dealmaking. One reason: The decades-old global bodies have lately failed or been tainted in much of their work, yet, because of their diffused authority, have not been forced to make major reforms. A recent survey of 447 foreign policy experts from 72 countries found 71% believe that the U.N. will become less influential in the coming decade.
A new model of state-centric alliances might be replacing the international system that was set up by the United States after World War II. 鈥淎 state-anchored approach recognizes that it is states, not global institutions, that are directly accountable to citizens,鈥� wrote Nadia Schadlow, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.
Beneath Mr. Trump鈥檚 theatrics, she added, lies a coherent claim that only states create, experience, and solve problems. 鈥淚n democracies, governments face political consequences when they fail, a chain of accountability weakened when authority is delegated to international organizations.鈥�
Whether this Trumpian version of a new world order will prevail, let alone succeed, is now playing out in Gaza. If the new board can create a Gaza where the government is answerable to the values and interests of the people, it will depend on the board itself 鈥� especially its chairman 鈥� knowing it will be held accountable by citizens of its member countries. Trust and integrity in society start with the ability of people to ensure responsibility in their leaders.
