4 min read • 662 words
Introduction
In a striking critique of global diplomacy, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has accused former U.S. President Donald Trump of attempting to forge a parallel international order. The accusation comes amid Trump’s recent invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to join a proposed ‘Board of Peace,’ a move conspicuously silent on the ongoing war in Gaza. This development signals a potential seismic shift in how global power might be projected outside traditional institutions.
Lula’s Diplomatic Warning
Speaking with characteristic candor, President Lula framed Trump’s actions as a direct challenge to the established multilateral system. He suggested the ‘Board of Peace’ initiative represents an effort to create a new, alternative United Nations, one potentially built on bilateral loyalties rather than collective consensus. For a leader from the Global South, this evokes concerns of a return to a world dominated by great-power politics, where smaller nations’ voices are marginalized. Lula’s perspective carries weight given Brazil’s historical advocacy for multipolarity and UN reform.
Decoding the ‘Board of Peace’
The details of Trump’s proposed ‘Board of Peace’ remain vague, but its inaugural invitation list is telling. By reportedly courting Netanyahu first, Trump is aligning the initiative closely with a key ally, bypassing the UN Security Council where Gaza is a contentious issue. The charter’s omission of Gaza, as noted by Al Jazeera, is a glaring silence that critics argue undermines its name. This selective engagement suggests a body designed not for universal dialogue, but for advancing specific geopolitical alignments and rewarding political friendships.
The Ghost of Gaza in the Room
The absence of any mention of the Israel-Hamas war in the board’s framework is its most controversial feature. For many international observers, it renders the ‘peace’ moniker hollow. This omission allows Netanyahu to engage without immediate pressure on a defining conflict of his tenure. It also reflects a potential Trump doctrine: sidestepping intractable, multilateral quagmires in favor of deals between aligned leaders. This approach prioritizes transactional relationships over holistic conflict resolution, a stark departure from UN principles.
Historical Context: Bypassing the UN
Trump’s skepticism of multilateral institutions is well-documented. His presidency was marked by withdrawals from the Paris Climate Accord and the WHO, and constant criticism of the UN. This new initiative appears to be a natural extension—building a forum he can control. Historically, similar efforts by powerful nations have often aimed to dilute the influence of universal bodies. Lula’s warning echoes fears that such a move could irrevocably weaken the already strained UN system, especially its security council, at a time of global fragmentation.
The Brazilian Stance and Global South Apprehension
Brazil, under Lula, has vigorously re-engaged with multilateral forums, advocating for a seat on the UN Security Council. His alarm is rooted in a vision where Global South nations gain influence through reformed universal systems, not ad-hoc clubs. A parallel structure led by a capricious superpower threatens this aspiration. It risks creating a two-tier diplomatic world: one for nations in favor with dominant powers, and another for the rest, navigating a diminished UN.
Implications for International Diplomacy
The mere proposal of such a board injects new uncertainty into global governance. It encourages nations to hedge their bets, potentially diverting energy from UN reform. For conflicts like Gaza, it offers an alternative path for involved parties to seek legitimacy outside traditional channels demanding ceasefire and humanitarian compliance. This could further complicate an already dysfunctional international response to crises, making coordinated action even more elusive.
Conclusion: A Fork in the Road for Global Order
President Lula’s stark warning highlights a pivotal moment. Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ may be an embryonic idea, but it symbolizes a potent trend toward disaggregated, interest-based diplomacy. As the world grapples with multiple crises, the contest between a universal, if flawed, system and rival clubs of influence will define the coming decade. The future of collective action may hinge on whether nations choose to repair the existing house of global governance or invest in building new, exclusive ones.
