Why Trump’s solo Yalta is so sinister

TOKYO — « History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, » Karl Marx, the author of « Das Kapital, » famously observed, warning that discredited leaders tend to reappear in darker — and often far more absurd — fashion.

How prescient he was. Since returning to the White House in January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump has continued to rattle, and in some cases, dismantle the postwar global order. He has unleashed a barrage of tariffs against most of the world, while leaving the Atlantic alliance, a bedrock of postwar stability, hanging by a thread.

To borrow Marx’s phrasing, Trump’s first-term diplomacy was a tragedy for the postwar order; his second is increasingly taking on the hue of a dark comedy. The most vivid example is the Board of Peace, a controversial body Trump launched with a charter-signing ceremony on Jan. 22 during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The Board of Peace is a new international entity billed as a forum for resolving global conflicts. Answering Trump’s call, heads of government and foreign ministers from about 20 countries gathered in the Swiss resort for its launch.

Some reports put the broader circle of participating countries, including those signaling an intention to join, at about 40. Trump has made little secret of his ambition to turn the initiative into something more than an ad hoc coalition, creating an institution that could rival or even supplant the United Nations Security Council.

« This board has the chance to be one of the most consequential bodies ever created, » Trump said in Davos.

His diagnosis of today’s world is not entirely off: From Ukraine to the Middle East, to parts of Africa and Asia, the world is engulfed in conflict. The Security Council is not merely paralyzed, it is structurally compromised by the fact that Russia, a permanent member with veto power, is also an aggressor. If the Board of Peace could genuinely supplement a deadlocked U.N., it would be a welcome development.

And yet, with Trump’s overwhelming presence as chair, the project risks becoming a theatrical display rather than serious statecraft. It is clearly a stage built by Trump, for Trump, and calibrated above all to serve his political needs.

According to the charter, Trump, as inaugural chairman, is granted sweeping prerogatives that would be unheard of in any credible multilateral institution. He effectively holds veto power over resolutions and acts as gatekeeper, determining which countries can join, and on what terms. It places no clear term limit on his chairmanship, raising the prospect that he could retain the post even after leaving the White House in January 2029.

Member states, by contrast, are treated as provisional. They serve three-year terms, renewable at the chairman’s discretion, unless they contribute $1 billion to secure permanent membership. The structure looks less like a rules-based international institution than an exclusive country club in which Trump holds ownership for life.

It is therefore unsurprising that major European powers have kept their distance. Japan and South Korea, Washington’s key allies in Asia, remain undecided, but good judgment suggests they should stay on the sidelines. The early roster skews toward deep-pocketed Middle Eastern states and resource-rich countries from the former Soviet space. It is too early to deliver a final verdict, but the project already reeks of a special-interest venture, driven by money and access to the Trump family’s businesses.

« The Board of Peace is an attempt by the United States to lead the creation of a new global decision-making body, » said Alina Polyakova, president of the Center for European Policy Analysis, a U.S. think tank. « If it operates without coordination with the G7, the G20 or the U.N. Security Council, and remains detached from the existing international system, it risks becoming a mechanism in which great powers decide the fate of the world behind closed doors. »

The new entity is unlikely to evolve into a sizable organization that could rival the 190-member U.N. Still, the initiative bears close watching, not least because it distills Trump’s diplomatic instincts in their purest form.

In January last year, on the eve of Trump’s second term, I wrote in this column that the essence of Trump’s diplomacy is a return to a « Yalta-era world order. » At the Yalta Conference, a World War II summit held in February 1945 near Yalta in Soviet Crimea, the leaders of the U.S., Britain and the Soviet Union secretly negotiated the outlines of the postwar settlement. I argued that Trump, too, would favor « great-power » dealmaking.

That analysis was not entirely wrong. It may, however, have underestimated the size of his ego.

Trump does not appear to view the leaders of China, Russia or other major powers as his equals. He seeks to be the sole protagonist shaping international politics. Even in his invitations to Beijing and Moscow to join the Board of Peace, he reportedly treated them like all the other names on the list, not granting them any special status.

Trump appears focused not on a great-power Yalta 2.0, but on a solo Yalta, with him standing at the apex of the leadership structure. The unpredictability of his foreign policy risks exacerbating global tensions.

For all its flaws, the Board of Peace has some redeeming features, however, as it could complicate Chinese President Xi Jinping’s efforts to establish a China-led order. Beijing aims to exploit gaps left by Washington’s withdrawal from U.N. bodies and court the Global South to expand its global influence. Viewed in this light, China has little incentive to participate in Trump’s new project.

Yet early members of the board include pro-China Pakistan, as well as Mongolia and former Soviet republics Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, all Global South countries located near China. Even Russia, China’s principal partner against the West, is said to be weighing participation. Whether by design or not, the involvement of Russia would add complexity to China’s geopolitical calculations.

While true comedies typically promise a cathartic ending, the Trump theater appears to have no script at all, only improvisation. Audiences must remain alert, for the finale could be less farce than fiasco, and plan accordingly.