Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Donald Trump’s breathtakingly autocratic ‘Board of Peace’

Published

on

In Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, under the sharp, thin air of the Swiss Alps, we witnessed what may be the final curtain call for the post-1945 international order. President Donald Trump, flanked by a curious mélange of Middle Eastern monarchs, South American populists and high-finance titans, held up a signed leather-bound folder. With that flourish, the “Board of Peace” was no longer a rhetorical flourish from the campaign trail but an official international organization and arguably the most radical disruption to global governance in 80 years.

It establishes a “might-makes-right” alternative to the United Nations.

What began as a localized mechanism to manage the reconstruction of a shattered Gazahas in the span of a few months, morphed into something far more ambitious. The charter signed at the World Economic Forum doesn’t just outline a plan for Palestinian demilitarization, but it also establishes a “might-makes-right” alternative to the United Nations. By inviting nations to a “pay-to-play” model of diplomacy, where a permanent seat reportedly requires a $1 billion entry feeTrump is attempting to do to global stability what he once did to the New York skyline: privatize it, brand it and center it on his own persona.

To understand the appeal of Trump’s board, one must first acknowledge the profound paralysis of the United Nations. For decades, the U.N. Security Council has been a graveyard of good intentions, hamstrung by the veto power of rival superpowers. The “strong” point of Trump’s venture is its hyper-transactional efficiency. The inclusion of figures such as Tony Blair and World Bank head Ajay Banga alongside billionaires such as Marc Rowan suggests a “CEO approach” to conflict resolution. For countries such as Pakistan, Egypt and the UAEwho were among the first to sign Wednesday,  the promise of a nimble body that actually moves money and rebuilds infrastructure is undeniably seductive.

Yet this efficiency comes at the cost of democratic norms. While the U.N. relies on the agonizingly slow process of building consensus among 193 nations, the Board of Peace would operate on the principle of the “inner circle.” In this new paradigm, geopolitical influence is no longer inherited through post-war treaties but purchased through capital commitments. By explicitly linking permanent membership to a 10-figure checkTrump is effectively issuing shares in global stability. Shareholders, if you will, will decide the fate of subsidiaries, the subsidiaries being the small, resource-poor nations that will inevitably find themselves on the board’s agenda.

However, the weaknesses of this new architecture are glaring and potentially fatal to the concept of international law. First, the board creates what amounts to a paywall of diplomacy. The $1 billion price tag for permanent membership turns global stability into a luxury good. Second, the governance is breathtakingly autocratic. The draft charter names Trump as “Chairman for Life” with the exclusive authority to modify the board’s entities. This isn’t a multilateral treaty; It is a corporate takeover of geopolitics.

We are seeing a dangerous schism in the Western alliance.

Furthermore, we are seeing a dangerous schism in the Western alliance. While Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Argentina’s Javier Mile have rushed to sign, the moral core of Europe has stayed away. British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper made it clear today that London would not sign onto a body that includes Russian President Vladimir Putin as a potential partner while the war in Ukraine still rages.

This tension reached its zenith during the recent standoff over Greenlandwhere Trump used the threat of tariffs to force a
“framework deal.” It signals that the board’s reach is not limited to war zones like Gaza; it is, instead, intended to be a tool for territorial and economic leverage across the globe.

The central question is whether the Board of Peace can truly replace the U.N. Security Council. The short answer is no, but it can certainly make it irrelevant. Trump’s dismissive comment this week that “the U.N. never helped me” reveals the core philosophy: He isn’t looking to fix the international system — he is looking to exit it.

If the board becomes the primary vehicle for reconstruction funds, then the U.N. will become a vestigial organ, a debating club for a world that no longer exists. We are moving into a “post-legal” world where conflicts are not resolved through shared principles, but settled through high-stakes negotiations between a few powerful men in a mountain resort. The tragedy is that the world does need a more effective peace-building body. But peace is not a real estate development. This week in Davos, the “American Century” didn’t just end — it was rebranded and sold to the highest bidder.

Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. His commentaries have appeared across leading American, European, Asia-Pacific and African publications.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Amanda Gorman honors Alex Pretti in new poem

Published

on

Amanda Gorman honors Alex Pretti in new poem

Amanda Gorman shared a powerful poem on Instagram that she wrote in honor of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen killed by a federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Saturday.

The poem, “For Alex Jeffrey Pretti,” characterizes Pretti’s killing as a “betrayal” and an “execution.”

Gorman, earlier this month, also paid tribute to Renee Nicole Good, another U.S. citizen killed by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. In a caption accompanying another poem shared on Instagram, Gorman said she was “horrified by the ongoing violence that ICE wages upon our community. Across our country, we are witnessing discrimination and brutality on an unconscionable scale.”

Her poem says, in part: “You could believe departed to be the dawn/ When the blank night has so long stood./ But our bright-fled angels will never be fully gone,/ When they forever are so fiercely Good.”

The 27-year-old writer and activist famously recited her poem, “Blue Light News We Climb,” at Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration in 2021. Gorman has also written poems in the wake of other tragedies in the country, including “Hymn for the Hurting,” about the Robb Elementary mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas in 2022. She also performed a poem she wrote about reproductive rights and the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court case in a NowThis video in 2019.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Ted Cruz bashes Vance and Trump in secret recordings

Published

on

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in recordings obtained by Axiosseems to have a bone to pick with Vice President JD Vance and sometimes, President Donald Trump.

In his remarks, which lasted about 10 minutes and were reportedly made in a private meeting with donors sometime last year, Cruz portrays himself as an economically-minded, pro-interventionist who has the president’s ear.

The Texas senator is also heard criticizing former Fox News personality, Tucker Carlson, and his relationship with the vice president. “Tucker created JD. JD is Tucker’s protégé, and they are one and the same,” Cruz told donors.

Cruz, who has clashed with Carlson in the past over foreign intervention policies, bashed the administration’s appointment of Israel critic Daniel Davis to a top national intelligence position. A vocal supporter of Israel himself, Cruz called Davis “a guy who viciously hates Israel,” and credited himself with removing Davis from the job.

The Republican senator also blamed Vance and Carlson for ousting former national security adviser Mike Waltz over similar anti-interventionist sentiments related to Iran.

“[Waltz] supported being vigorous against Iran and bombing Iran — and Tucker and JD took Mike out,” Cruz said.

Cruz also said he has been trying to get the White House to accept a trade agreement with India, but claimed White House economic adviser Peter Navarro, Vance and “sometimes” Trump, are resistant.

Domestically, Cruz cautioned donors about Trump’s tariffs, which he said could result in severe economic and political consequences. Cruz is reportedly heard telling donors that he told the president “if we get to November of [2026] and people’s 401(k)s are down 30% and prices are up 10–20% at the supermarket, we’re going to go into Election Day, face a bloodbath.”

Cruz said a conversation he had with Trump about tariffs “did not go well,” and that Trump was “yelling” and “cursing.” Cruz said Trump told him: “F*** you, Ted.”

“Trump was in a bad mood,” Cruz said. “I’ve been in conversations where he was very happy. This was not one of them.”

In a statement about the recordings, a spokesperson for Cruz said he is “the president’s greatest ally in the Senate and battles every day in the trenches to advance his agenda. Those battles include fights over staffers who try to enter the administration despite disagreeing with the president and seeking to undermine his foreign policy” and that “these attempts at sowing division are pathetic and getting boring.”

In an email responding to MS NOW’s request for comment on Cruz’s reported statements, the White House did not address Cruz’s statements.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The real reason Trump and MAGA are so quick to blame Minneapolis shooting victims

Published

on

Alex Pretti was shot to death on the sidewalk of a street in Minneapolis after he didn’t leave when federal agents demanded he leave. Renee Good was shot to death in her car on a street in Minneapolis because she tried to leave when federal agents demanded she not.

Advocates of President Donald Trump’s administration will cite this disobedience as a central factor in Pretti and Good’s deaths. Each has been assigned a contrived danger, as well, to reinforce the urgent need for their killings: Pretti had a gun (that he doesn’t appear to have drawn) and Good had her car (that she doesn’t appear to have used as a weapon).

But their central offense, among those eager to champion Trump’s politics and policies, was their failure to be pliant. They were at odds with the state and, well, sometimes that’s punishable by death.

It is stunning, though not surprising, to see the president of the United States and sworn federal officials impugn dead citizens so callously.

It has been posited that the eagerness with which Trump and his allies have defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents against charges of excessive force, and the alacrity with which they assign blame to the victims of those shootings, demonstrates hypocrisy, given their collective willingness to absolve — to beatify! — the rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. They, too, defied state authority and, in many cases, far more aggressively. But they are hailed as heroes by the current administration.

But this isn’t hypocrisy at all. It’s consistent. If you object to or impede their politics, they will hurt you. That is the consistency and it is why off-duty police were in the mob on Jan. 6 and why Trump supporters defend ICE today. It’s not the badge that matters. It’s the red cap.

The most jarring element of the response to Pretti’s death and to Good’s death is the speed with which the administration has disparaged the victims rather than the perpetrators. Each of them was also immediately asserted to have been a premeditated, violent actor. A terrorist. When each, instead, was at the scene of their unwitting deaths because they were part of and supportive of their community.

It is stunning, though not surprising, to see the president of the United States and sworn federal officials impugn dead citizens so callously. It’s utterly immoral, if not deranged. What flows through their veins is partisanship, and what dominates their thoughts is knocking their opponents and critics back on their heels. Perhaps there are flutters of recognition that this is not how human beings behave, much less political leaders in a democracy. But if those flames flicker into existence, they are quickly snuffed.

And for what! This is the question that continues to baffle me more than any other. Why has the Department of Homeland Security dispatched vans and SUVs filled with masked men to Minneapolis? Most immediately, it seems, it’s because a bad-faith “investigation” from a right-wing media personality made Minnesota a focus of the right’s collective anger. So the president pointed at Minnesota and his shock troops marched.

Their mission has been described in a number of ways, which means that (as with so much else in Trump’s world) the effect was decided before the cause. Maybe it’s about combatting the fraud alleged by the media personality, even though prosecutors had been investigating and securing convictions for social services fraud in Minnesota for years. Or maybe it’s just about uprooting immigrants.

This is the government’s most common explanation. Trump and his aides have repeatedly insisted that the expansive, guerrilla-style raids being conducted by federal agents in Minnesota have been effective at removing the “worst of the worst” criminal immigrants from the area, something it insists that the state’s Democratic leaders had refused to do. (The state disagrees.)

What’s the right ratio here, Mr. President? How many citizens being shot to death is worth this campaign of fear and its sporadic deportations?

At a White House press conference on Jan. 20, Trump held up images of 40 individuals who he claimed had been detained by federal agents in Minnesota. A DHS website titled, “ARRESTED: WORST OF THE WORST,” — identifies just under 500 such people in the state. Some of them (as was the case with Trump’s visual aids) seem less like “the worst of the worst” than like “people with any criminal record at all.” Does having a DUI make you one of the nation’s worst criminals? If you weren’t born here, I guess so.

Even by DHS’ count, though, the government isn’t only targeting “the worst of the worst.” On Jan. 14, the agency put out a press release claiming that they’d arrested 2,500 of the “worst of the worst,” meaning that the website, even with the drunk drivers, is a couple thousand short in its tally. Nationally, of course, ICE has accelerated its detention of people with no criminal records at all. One analysis estimates that 92 out of every 100 people added to ICE detention last year faced no criminal charges and had no past convictions. Besides, violent crime in Minnesota was already on the decline before DHS and ICE showed up (also mirroring national trends).

So the feds rolled up some people with criminal records or maybe pending charges. In doing so, they spread chaos and confusion around the city, shipped a kindergartener off to Texas and sent a baby to the hospital.

In doing so, they killed two residents of Minneapolis, their dying bodies laying at the side of the road.

What’s the right ratio here, Mr. President? How many citizens being shot to death is worth this campaign of fear and its sporadic deportations?

It seems as though the answer is clear by now: As many as can be killed with his base still believing that they were violent opponents of the president’s politics. As long as that belief is sustained, the killings can continue because it means that his supporters’ confidence and trust in him is sustained, too. And that, more even than purifying the populaceis what matters to Trump.

The White House and DHS frequently validate their work by pointing to the killers they’re taking out of the country, outsiders who’d killed Americans. It would be a more effective argument if they weren’t defending the outsiders they brought into Minneapolis who did the same thing.

Philip Bump is a data journalist and MS NOW contributor.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending