Hanoi Trading Post

In my opinion, the picture around the new “Board of Peace” is getting even more confusing. Laura Tingle pointed out that the board was originally presented as a mechanism to stabilise and rebuild Gaza, yet the charter circulating in the media barely mentions Gaza at all. China has also stressed that any Gaza initiative must stay within the UN framework, which makes sense when you look at what’s now emerging.

Bloomberg is reporting that countries wanting a permanent seat on the Board of Peace would need to contribute US$1 billion, and that the chairman — Donald Trump — would have sweeping authority over membership, voting outcomes, the agenda, and even the interpretation of the charter. Critics quoted in the article say this looks less like a Gaza reconstruction body and more like a parallel organisation that could rival or bypass the UN.

To me, when you combine Tingle’s analysis, China’s concerns, and the billion‑dollar membership model, it raises real questions about transparency, accountability, and what this board is actually designed to do. If the goal is genuine peace and reconstruction, then clarity and trust are essential, and right now, the structure being described doesn’t inspire much confidence.