Speaker 1: Donald Trump has invited Australia to join his new Board
Speaker 1: of Peace, a Trump led body he says will help
Speaker 1: bring peace. The guards of a new.
Speaker 2: International oversight body, the Board of Peace. We call it
Speaker 2: the Board of Peace. Sort of a beautiful name, the
Speaker 2: Board of Peace.
Speaker 1: But the invitation comes with a warning. Some leaders say
Speaker 1: the Board could undermine the United Nations, and Trump himself
Speaker 1: has suggested it might even replace it.
Speaker 3: You want your Board of Peace to replace the UN?
Speaker 4: Well it, mate?
Speaker 2: I mean, the UN just hasn't been very helpful. I'm
Speaker 2: a big fan of the UN potential, but it has
Speaker 2: never lived up to US potential.
Speaker 1: Trump has spent years attacking the United Nations as ineffective,
Speaker 1: and this term his administration has moved to pull the
Speaker 1: US out of dozens of UN agencies. So is this
Speaker 1: a peace plan or a power play? I'm Daniel James,
Speaker 1: and you're listening to seven AM today you and analyst
Speaker 1: at International Crossis Group Maya Anga on the real agenda
Speaker 1: behind Trump's Board of Pace and whether Astria would be
Speaker 1: wise to join. It's Friday, January twenty three. My You've
Speaker 1: been wading the chatter for Donald Trump's so called Board
Speaker 1: of Pace so tell me about the board and what's
Speaker 1: slided out in this draft document.
Speaker 4: So the Board of Peace was originally authorized by the
Speaker 4: UN Security Council in November, meant to oversee the future
Speaker 4: of the peace process in Gaza. The charter document that
Speaker 4: we have seen sent out to countries with invitations to
Speaker 4: join this week is a much more expansive version of
Speaker 4: what was originally authorized, and I think it's shocked many now.
Speaker 3: The charter is actually quite short for a new type.
Speaker 4: Of international institute or organization, and the thing that is
Speaker 4: clearest is that it is meant to formalize and institutionalize
Speaker 4: Donald Trump's power as kind of the chairman or head
Speaker 4: of a new organization. It's not the United States, it's
Speaker 4: not set to a particular term, but instead he has
Speaker 4: the power to be chairman of this for life.
Speaker 2: The leaders of the Arab world and Israel and everybody
Speaker 2: involved asked me to do this, so it would be
Speaker 2: headed by a gentleman known as President Donald J. Trump
Speaker 2: of the United States. It's what I want.
Speaker 4: Is Something important to note is though even though the
Speaker 4: Board of Pieces authorization has to do with Gaza, the
Speaker 4: charter itself doesn't mention it. It explains the fact that
Speaker 4: it is meant to be a new institution to solve
Speaker 4: threats essentially to international peace and security. But I think
Speaker 4: there's still a big question for many as to why
Speaker 4: this has come now. You know, Trump has critiqued international
Speaker 4: organizations like the UN Security Council, the primary body that
Speaker 4: deals with in our national peace and security, for being
Speaker 4: unable to really step up in the face of major conflicts.
Speaker 3: And we have seen that it's a fair critique across.
Speaker 4: The board, from Gaza to Ukraine to Sudan that the
Speaker 4: politics of the Council has meant that the legitimacy of
Speaker 4: it as a you know, effective body has really reduced.
Speaker 4: But I think many are still unsure about the actual aims,
Speaker 4: how expansive this is. We have a kind of Gaza
Speaker 4: board which goes under the broader board. Is this going
Speaker 4: to be replicated against other contexts? You know, there's much
Speaker 4: to still be seen.
Speaker 1: So I was this Trump trying to actually replace the
Speaker 1: U in itself because it IDs much Lucky said let's
Speaker 1: lock a Gaza specific organization and we'll lock a fanning
Speaker 1: chatter of a new international body. Is that what he's
Speaker 1: trying to do?
Speaker 4: He so US officials have said that he is not
Speaker 4: trying to replace the UN Security Council, but this is
Speaker 4: not an alternative, but something that will act in parallel.
Speaker 3: When he's talked.
Speaker 4: About it, he has been clear to say, you know,
Speaker 4: the UN is not effective and therefore we need bodies
Speaker 4: like this.
Speaker 2: I wish the United Nations could do more. I wish
Speaker 2: we didn't need a Board of Peace, but the United Nations.
Speaker 2: And you know, with all the wars I settled, the
Speaker 2: United Nations never helped me on one war.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: The Board of Peace itself, though, is only even if
Speaker 4: it replicated the work of the Security Council, it's only
Speaker 4: one very small part of the broader UN system. The
Speaker 4: Security Council deploys over sixty thousand peacekeepers. It oversees fourteen
Speaker 4: different sanctions regimes. You know, It rits and helps to
Speaker 4: delegate mandates for humanitarian operations which help provide for millions
Speaker 4: of people around the globe, and it has an immense
Speaker 4: amount of resourcing even if the organization is in financial crisis.
Speaker 4: Right now, the Board of Peace, as it is laid out,
Speaker 4: while it seeks to bring world leaders together to have
Speaker 4: dialogue with President Trump, having the ultimate veto, it doesn't
Speaker 4: really outline how it would replace many of these critical functions.
Speaker 1: Tchamp has sent a copy of the draft chad Or
Speaker 1: alongside a letter of invitation to about sixty countries. Who
Speaker 1: has he invaded and what is the response.
Speaker 4: Largely being so, it's a mix of countries that he's invited.
Speaker 4: Some are his close friends, such as Argentinian President Malay
Speaker 4: and Hungarian President Orbon. Others are traditional American allies, from
Speaker 4: the French to the Canadians to the Norwegians, and others
Speaker 4: are you know, the great powers that we see in
Speaker 4: the world. Vladimir Putin, Shu Jingping each received invitations.
Speaker 3: I think that the reception has been varied.
Speaker 4: We'll say to the least, you have some countries who
Speaker 4: have enthusiastically joined on board. Those are Trump's friends like Hungary, Argentina, Kazakhstan.
Speaker 4: You have others who have more cautiously signed on while
Speaker 4: still trying to reaffirm the principles that were authorized under
Speaker 4: for the continuation of the peace process in Gaza. The
Speaker 4: Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Katsar Ejat and others kind
Speaker 4: of put a joint statement affirming this and then you
Speaker 4: have some like France, like Sweden, who have said, no,
Speaker 4: we're going to decline this invitation. This is not under
Speaker 4: the tenets of an international system that we agree with urnning.
Speaker 4: French President Emmanuel Macrone has rejected President Donald Trump's invitation
Speaker 4: to join.
Speaker 3: A proposed Board of peace overseeing.
Speaker 4: Gaza, citing concerns it could undermine the United Nations.
Speaker 2: What I'll do is, if they feel like Costo, I'll
Speaker 2: put a two hundred percent tariff for his wines and champagnes.
Speaker 1: Australia has also been invoted. But is it to accept
Speaker 1: this invitation? Just speculating him, Why is it in Australia's
Speaker 1: interest to accept this invitation.
Speaker 4: I don't think it is in Australia's interest to accept
Speaker 4: the invitation. I think it's in Australia's interests to take
Speaker 4: the approach that, for example, Canada has done, which is
Speaker 4: to not outright turn down the invitation, therefore potentially triggering
Speaker 4: retaliatory tariffs or actions, but instead to set preconditions that
Speaker 4: you know are not actually going to be met. The
Speaker 4: Canadians have set preconditions related to the spending of this
Speaker 4: one billion dollars that Trump has talked about in order
Speaker 4: to gain permanent membership on the Board of Peace, and
Speaker 4: it's unlikely that Trump would accede to these demands, and
Speaker 4: so likely the Canadians are going to be able to say, well,
Speaker 4: you know, we're not declining, but we're just waiting for
Speaker 4: these changes to be made because all world leaders are
Speaker 4: having to negotiate this balance where this is a deeply
Speaker 4: unfair international board which premises Trump above all else and
Speaker 4: allows him to make decisions to shut down the decisions
Speaker 4: of every other world leader. But at the same time
Speaker 4: he has shown it very clear that he's vindictive when
Speaker 4: leaders don't sign up to what he wants.
Speaker 1: And what is the reaction banged from the UN Maya.
Speaker 4: There has been a lot of quiet concern in the
Speaker 4: hallways of the UN over the past couple of days.
Speaker 4: I'm based here in New York, and it is the
Speaker 4: number one thing that everyone is talking about in the
Speaker 4: UN itself. There is a feeling that this is a
Speaker 4: threat to the very nature of the international order that
Speaker 4: has been set up in the pulse World War era.
Speaker 4: The UN is at a state of crisis as it
Speaker 4: is both a financial and a legitimacy crisis, and it
Speaker 4: is increasingly kind.
Speaker 3: Of boxed out of mediation and political efforts.
Speaker 4: Part of this is the UN's fault itself, it has
Speaker 4: shown itself to be a weak actor under the Secretary General.
Speaker 4: But part of it is the fact that other member states,
Speaker 4: including and especially President Trump, have not opened up the
Speaker 4: space for the UN to kind of play that political role.
Speaker 4: So I think there's a lot of concern that this
Speaker 4: is a formalization of a pattern that we've been seeing
Speaker 4: over the past year, and even farther than.
Speaker 1: That, coming up, what happens to Gaza if the Board
Speaker 1: of Pace falls to paces.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has been pitching these as a response to
Speaker 1: UN failure and has been a long vocal critic of
Speaker 1: the UN Security Council. Where does that criticism stand from?
Speaker 4: So, Donald Trump's political and foreign policy approach is that
Speaker 4: these institutions should, more than anything else, fit American interests.
Speaker 4: He says, the United States is the country that pays
Speaker 4: in the most to the institution, and it should run
Speaker 4: in accordance with the way that the United States think
Speaker 4: it should. Now, the way that the Security Council structure
Speaker 4: is set up means that there are five countries with
Speaker 4: permanent vetos.
Speaker 3: The US has one of those, but.
Speaker 4: China, Russia, and the United Kingdom and France also have
Speaker 4: veto power, though France and the UK actually haven't used
Speaker 4: there since nineteen eighty nine, and so the US have
Speaker 4: found themselves frustrated over being unable to pursue some of
Speaker 4: the policies that they see in their interest because of
Speaker 4: the Russian and Chinese use of the vetos. In the
Speaker 4: same way, many members stay critique the Security Council because
Speaker 4: they see it as an unfair institution. The fact that
Speaker 4: the United States has a veto for example, and so
Speaker 4: there's been decades of the majority of countries in the
Speaker 4: world pushing for Security Council reform. But this Board of
Speaker 4: Peace is three, four or five steps back from what
Speaker 4: they're asking for. It's moving in the opposite direction of
Speaker 4: what they've been campaigning.
Speaker 1: Sorry, the why that the board is drafted at the
Speaker 1: moment does a guy winning way knee fixing the compliants
Speaker 1: of the U and Security Council.
Speaker 4: I mean, there are different critiques about the Security Council.
Speaker 4: One is a very real critique about its effectiveness. And
Speaker 4: it is true that a body with one unilateral leader
Speaker 4: is going to be more effective about pushing policy through
Speaker 4: than one that is meant to come to agreement among
Speaker 4: fifteen members and must come to agreement among at least
Speaker 4: nine with no veto of the permanent five. But at
Speaker 4: the same time, if these decisions are not with the
Speaker 4: entirety of world membership, if not all of the countries
Speaker 4: involved are there, if it doesn't hold the legit miscia
Speaker 4: being based in international law and the charter and tenets
Speaker 4: of the system, then how effective is it actually going
Speaker 4: to be? And on the other big critique of the
Speaker 4: Security Council, which is that it is an unequal institution
Speaker 4: which reinforces existing power dynamics, I mean this is this
Speaker 4: is going even farther down that route, and.
Speaker 1: The spot being initially critical of this body, Benjamin Nittanya,
Speaker 1: who has agreed to join, has significant as that.
Speaker 4: I think it's something that many of us are watching
Speaker 4: because the fact that the Board of Peace itself does
Speaker 4: not have any Palestinians on its executive board, and you
Speaker 4: haven't seen the State of Palestine being invited to join this,
Speaker 4: So I think many are concerned about the implications that
Speaker 4: that will have. And I do think that Nanna, who
Speaker 4: will absolutely try to leverage his position on the Board
Speaker 4: of Peace to further influence policy on Gaza. But Nenyahu
Speaker 4: has a direct line to Trump anyways, and I don't
Speaker 4: think being one member on a broader Board of Peace
Speaker 4: is going to increase his leverage more than being able
Speaker 4: to just pick up the phone and call Donald Trump
Speaker 4: any time of day.
Speaker 1: Male. We are currently saying a huge fragmentation of what
Speaker 1: you could call the old order. What's the logalhood that
Speaker 1: this does actually shape up the be a rival to
Speaker 1: the UN Security Council, or at least on the mind
Speaker 1: it's work moving forward.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, if this Board of Peace does get
Speaker 4: off the ground, it will be a point of fracture
Speaker 4: for the international system as we understand it. I can't
Speaker 4: imagine a scenario in which you actually have Russia and China,
Speaker 4: these big powers who hold vetos within the Security.
Speaker 3: Council, actually signing up to this.
Speaker 4: So I think if it does get off the ground,
Speaker 4: the biggest likelihood is it just becomes a club of
Speaker 4: Trump's friends and so you have negotiations, you have discussions,
Speaker 4: but more than anything, you have disunity increasingly in the system.
Speaker 4: You know, the Security Council has many issues, and I'm
Speaker 4: one of the first to critique it, that's kind of
Speaker 4: my job. But it is the place where all countries
Speaker 4: can come together to discuss issues across a table. And
Speaker 4: when you have a further fracturing of that system, when
Speaker 4: you move people away from that ability for dialogue and cooperation,
Speaker 4: it is only going to make compromise and diplomacy more difficult.
Speaker 1: And finally, Maya, what does this mean for placing Gaza.
Speaker 4: I think this is a big question mark because when
Speaker 4: we originally had envisioned the Board of Peace, it was
Speaker 4: meant to help to solve, you know, moving forward the
Speaker 4: peace process in Gaza. But if the Board of Peace
Speaker 4: fails to get off the ground, it could also have
Speaker 4: reciprocal implications.
Speaker 3: On the peace process in Gaza as well.
Speaker 4: You know, if the Board of Peace falls apart at
Speaker 4: the executive level, do the technical committees fall apart, does
Speaker 4: the executive board for Gaza fall apart?
Speaker 3: Where are we at?
Speaker 4: Are we going to see an increase in Israeli attacks.
Speaker 4: It's a really big concern and I think for those
Speaker 4: following the conflict quite closely, there is actually a feeling
Speaker 4: that there needs to be an in this Board of
Speaker 4: Peace to allow the further process to move forward. And
Speaker 4: that's why you saw all of these let Arab leaders
Speaker 4: sign on to.
Speaker 1: It Riya, thank you so much for speaking with us,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. Also in the news, the coalition
Speaker 1: has officially split, with National's leader David little Proud declaring
Speaker 1: the partnership untenable after a mass resignation from the shadow
Speaker 1: front bench. Liberal leader Susan Lee is under growing pressure,
Speaker 1: with some in the Liberal Party suggesting her leadership may
Speaker 1: not survive the fallout in wake of hate speech legislation
Speaker 1: passing through both houses of Parliament in response to the
Speaker 1: Bondi attack. We will have a full recap of the
Speaker 1: week in Parliament tomorrow with Amyymikus. And A fifteen year
Speaker 1: old boy has been arrested after allegedly young's threats and
Speaker 1: anti Semitic abuse at a group of students in Melbourne.
Speaker 1: Police say the boy was in a vehicle that nearly
Speaker 1: struck one of the students as it ran a red light.
Speaker 1: The arrested team is also being questioned over other offenses,
Speaker 1: including aggravated burglary and vehicle theft. A second suspect is
Speaker 1: also being sought. I'm Daniel James. You've been listening to
Speaker 1: seven AM. We'll be back tomorrow.