by Alex Newman, The New American:
With the emergence of a powerful new global organization dubbed the “Board of Peace,” Americans and people everywhere are asking some big questions. Is globalism being undermined, super-charged, or given a makeover? What will happen to it after President Donald Trump? Will it truly bring peace? Is it even legal or constitutional?
The details are still being ironed out, it seems. But the Board of Peace — launched with much fanfare just months ago — continues to make headlines worldwide. Its first big project: Turning Gaza into what supporters say will be a model of peace and prosperity even as critics are slamming the plan as a prototype for future technocratic 15-minute cities.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
American taxpayers have already been hit with some big bills. The State Department quietly transferred $1.25 billion to the new body. And President Trump has pledged a staggering $10 billion in U.S. support, without any hint of congressional approval. The organization is hard at work, mostly behind closed doors. And it has a lot of money.
But it is also drawing criticism and skepticism. Author and researcher Patrick Wood, one of the world’s top experts on technocracy, is among those sounding the alarm. From legal concerns to criticism of the structure and the people involved, Wood argued last month that the Board of Peace was an illegitimate institution aimed at building world order by undermining national sovereignty piece by piece.
Wood said: “Its scope is unlimited. Its chairman is permanent. Its legal basis is fabricated. Its headquarters is a seized building whose ownership is contested in federal court. Its operating capital is money stripped from disaster relief funds without a vote of Congress. Its operational staff comes from the Chairman’s son-in-law’s personal network. And it was launched beneath the Great Seal of the United States — the one symbol that tells the world: this is official, this is legitimate, this is America.”
Details of the Board of Peace
While almost 30 governments have joined as full members, many key U.S. allies are sitting on the sidelines for now. Inaugural meetings have wrapped up, praise from allies in the Middle East is flowing, and optimistic statements from administration officials paint a picture of hope for a region and a world long plagued by conflict.
President Trump, who is serving as the board’s inaugural chairman and potentially chairman for life “independent of his presidency of the United States,” has hailed the outfit as “one of the most consequential bodies ever created.” In his words, it offers “the first steps toward a brighter day for the Middle East and a much safer future for the world.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed that sentiment, crediting Trump’s “vision and courage” for achieving what many thought “impossible.” Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and others have spoken of hostages returned, hope restored, and a chance to apply free-market principles to give Gazans dignity and opportunity rather than endless aid dependency and perpetual war.
Even Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, dubbed “Special Envoy for Peace” as he co-leads aspects of the Gaza effort and serves in multiple key roles in the administration’s Middle East policy, has emphasized shifting from 85 percent aid-driven GDP to real economic activities. Kushner ally and associate Aryeh Lightstone is one of the primary players involved in the new outfit.
On the surface, this sounds like classic “America First”/“Make America Great Again” leadership: bold, results-oriented action to end decades of suffering without dragging the United States into another forever war. It’s already making all the right people mad. Jacobin magazine was outraged at what it called the “board of naked power.” And no one can deny the appeal of practical efforts for peace after decades of failed globalist interventions, power-hungry international bureaucracies, and endless neoconservative wars.
Where Does the UN Fit In?
But despite commentary suggesting that the Board of Peace might be an effort to sideline or even replace the United Nations — multiple governments have said this is what appears to be happening — Trump himself has been clear that this is not the case. In fact, the UN, while “flawed,” has “tremendous potential,” Trump said. Meanwhile, the president promised that the board will operate “in conjunction with the United Nations,” rather than replacing it or seeking to duplicate its efforts.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz, a longtime neoconservative who was demoted from national security advisor early on in Trump’s second term, has pushed back against claims that America is “turning its back on the world.” Instead, he insists, “that couldn’t be further from the truth.” It is merely engagement done right, he claims. In a recent Senate hearing, Waltz celebrated the “tremendous potential” of the UN that he said “it needs to realize.”
Of course, the UN was created from the start to serve as a future world government. Even key U.S. officials such as Secretary of State John Foster Dulles admitted as much at the time (see his book War or Peace). Another top American involved in the process, Alger Hiss, who led the conference that created the UN and served as its first boss, was a spy for mass-murdering Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin.
With that in mind, it is easy to see why so many Americans would love to see the UN retired, even if it meant another organization might rise in its place. However, platitudes about peace notwithstanding, it is essential that Americans examine this new Board of Peace not in light of talking points or wishful thinking, but through the lens of constitutional principles and historical lessons.
Read More @ TheNewAmerican.com
