politics
Showcasing the fight for political equality and the fearless females blazing the trail, to be stopped only once their hairstyle does not a headline make.
Trump’s Board of Peace Faces Global Skepticism as Major Powers Hold Back. AI-Generated.
When Donald Trump unveiled his new “Board of Peace,” he presented it as a bold corrective to what he has long described as a broken international system. Framed as a results-driven alternative to bureaucratic gridlock, the board promises fast-trackedreconstruction, streamlined diplomacy, anddecisiveleadership — particularly in conflict zones like Gaza. On paper, it sounds like a headline-ready solution to global paralysis. In practice, however, the world’s biggest powers appear tobewatching from a distance. So what exactly is this Board of Peace? Who’s on board — and why are so many influential countries keeping their seats empty? A New Player in Global Diplomacy The Board of Peace is designed as an international coordinating body focused on post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. Its initial emphasis has been Gaza, where rebuilding infrastructure, restoring governance,andmanaginghumanitarianaidremainmassiveundertakings. Trump has positioned the board as leaner and more action-oriented than traditional institutions. Instead of prolonged negotiations and overlapping committees, the pitch centers on speed and centralized leadership. The United States has pledged substantial funding, signaling that Washington intends to be the driving force. Supporters argue that large multilateral organizations often move too slowly to respond to crises. In their view, a smaller coalition ofwilling nations could deploy funds and expertise more efficiently. Critics, however, see something else: a parallel structure that risks duplicating — or undermining — long-established global institutions. Who Signed On? The Board of Peace has attracted participation from a mix of mid-sized and regional powers. Several Gulf states have shown interest, particularly those with strategic and financial stakes in Middle Eastern stability. Some countries in Central Asia, North Africa, and Latin America have also signaled support. For these governments, joining may offer practical benefits. Participation could mean influence over reconstruction contracts, a stronger diplomatic relationship with Washington, or a seat at a new decision-making table. In some cases, alignment with the initiativereflectspragmaticgeopolitics. Smaller or emergingeconomies often welcome platforms that diversify their partnerships beyond traditional Western-led frameworks. But while the roster includes dozens of countries, it notably lacks some of the world’s heaviest hitters. The Bigger Countries’ Caution Major European powers have largely refrained from fullmembership. Nations like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have opted for caution, citing concerns about governance structures and institutional overlap. China and India — both key global players with growing influence in multilateral affairs — have not embraced the initiative either. Their hesitation signals that the board may struggle to achieve the universal legitimacy that established global bodies enjoy. Why the reluctance? There are several factors at play. 1. Institutional Competition Many governments are wary of initiatives that appear to sidestep or dilute existing systems, particularly the United Nations framework. Even if the Board of Peace operates alongside established institutions, its existence raises questions about coordination and authority. Will decisions be harmonized with U.N. agencies? Who ultimately sets the agenda? How are disputes resolved? Without clear answers, larger countries may prefer to stay within structures they helped shape and understand. 2. Governance and Control Leadership matters in international diplomacy — not just who leads, but how. The Board of Peace is closely associated with Trump personally. While supporters see decisive leadership as a strength, skeptics question whether centralized control could overshadow collaborative governance. Major powers often seek balanced structures where influence is distributed. If they perceive decision-making authority to be concentrated, they may hesitate to commit funding and political capital. 3. Financial Commitments Membership reportedly comes with funding expectations. For larger economies, contributions could be substantial. In an era of domestic budget pressures and shifting political priorities, governments are cautious about signing blank checks. They want clarity on oversight, accountability, and measurable outcomes before pledging major resources. 4. Geopolitical Signaling Joining a new diplomatic body is never purely administrative — it’s symbolic. Participation may be interpreted as endorsement of a particular political vision. Some governments may wish to avoid appearing aligned with an initiative that could be seen as partisan or polarizing. Global diplomacy often involves careful balancing acts. Sitting out can be as strategic as signing on. The Gaza Focus — and Beyond The board’s immediate emphasis on Gaza reconstruction gives it a defined mission. Rebuilding housing, restoring utilities, and supporting governance structures are tangible goals. Yet there are broader ambitions as well. Proponents have suggested that the Board of Peace could expand into other regions, serving as a template for post-conflict recovery worldwide. That expansion potential is both a selling point and a sticking point. For supporters, scalability means impact. For skeptics, it raises the question: is this a complementary initiative, or a new pillar of global governance? The answer may determine whether more countries eventually participate. A Test of Influence At its core, the Board of Peace is a test — not just of funding or logistics, but of influence. Can a U.S.-led initiative attract enough international buy-in to become durable? Can it deliver measurable results quickly enough to justify its creation? And perhaps most importantly, can it operate without deepening fractures in an already fragmented global order? History shows that new institutions often face resistance at first. Some fade away quietly. Others evolve into fixtures of international cooperation. The difference usually lies in outcomes. The Road Ahead For now, the Board of Peace exists in a gray zone — neither universally embraced nor outright rejected. Its supporters see momentum and opportunity. Its critics see ambiguity and risk. If the board succeeds in delivering visible improvements in Gaza — faster rebuilding, transparent governance, effective aid distribution — skepticism may soften. Concrete results have a way of shifting diplomatic calculations. If, however, coordination falters or political disputes overshadow progress, larger countries may feel vindicated in their caution. In global politics, legitimacy is earned through performance as much as participation. A Changing Diplomatic Landscape The emergence of the Board of Peace reflects a broader reality: international governance is evolving. Traditional institutions face growing criticism for inefficiency and political deadlock. At the same time, new coalitions and regional groupings are experimenting with alternative models. Whether Trump’s initiative becomes a lasting fixture or a brief experiment will depend on execution, transparency, and inclusivity. For now, the board stands as a symbol of a shifting diplomatic landscape — one where leadership, speed, and visibility compete with tradition, consensus, and institutional depth. The bigger countries may be steering clear for the moment. But in global affairs, distance rarely means disinterest.
By 😎Baلoch✨.zada😎6 days ago in Viva
You are NOT a "Conservative Feminist," You are a Radical Conservative.
I am brutally honest with my opinion, and many people hate me for it. I am unapologetic when people who claim to be "Conservative Feminists" are offended when I say: "Conservatism and Feminism directly contradict each other; conservative feminism does not exist. You're not a feminist, you're a Radical Conservative." It's at that point civility dissolves from the other party, and they start calling me names or defending themselves instead of saying, "Excuse me? Explain yourself."
By Hope Martin14 days ago in Viva
Prosecutors Demand Death Sentence for Ex–South Korean President Yoon Over Martial Law Crisis. AI-Generated.
In a case that has sent shockwaves through South Korea and drawn international attention, independent prosecutors have formally demanded the death penalty for former president Yoon Suk Yeol, accusing him of leading an insurrection through his short-lived but explosive declaration of martial law in late 2024. The move marks one of the most dramatic moments in South Korea’s modern democratic history and underscores how seriously authorities view the former leader’s actions.
By sehzeen fatimaabout a month ago in Viva
Germany Downplays US Threat to Greenland. AI-Generated.
Introduction Recent comments about the United States and Greenland have drawn international attention, especially in Europe. Reports suggesting that the US could threaten or pressure Greenland have raised concerns among NATO allies and Arctic nations. In response, Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has moved to calm the situation. He has clearly stated that Germany does not see a serious or immediate threat from the United States toward Greenland and has urged allies to focus on cooperation rather than speculation.
By sehzeen fatimaabout a month ago in Viva
Myanmar’s Junta Election: A Vote Without a Choice
Myanmar’s military government has held the second phase of its planned election, but many people inside and outside the country say the vote is not real democracy. Critics describe it as a “sham election” designed to keep the generals in power, not to return the country to civilian rule. The election comes while Myanmar is still facing war, poverty, and deep political repression.
By dua fatima2 months ago in Viva
Russia’s Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile Strike on Ukraine: Why It Matters. AI-Generated.
Russia’s war in Ukraine has entered another serious phase after Moscow confirmed it used its Oreshnik hypersonic missile in a recent strike. While missile attacks are not new in this conflict, the use of this advanced weapon has drawn strong reactions from Ukraine and Western countries. Many people are asking: Why does this matter so much? This article explains the issue in easy-to-understand English, step by step.
By sehzeen fatima2 months ago in Viva
"The Woman or the Girl You Knew the night before...."
"Girl... ..... you'll be a woman, soon." Neil Diamond sang those lyrics circa 1967, the same year Aretha Franklin was belting out "Natural Woman". Bob Segar recorded the song "Turn the Page" in 1971 with the lyrics "You can think about the woman, or the girl you knew the night before." And "She's Always a Woman" is a song by Billy Joel from his "Stranger" album of 1977, while the BeeGee's sang "More than a Woman"also in the 70s. People also loved John Lennon's song "Woman" from the album "Double Fantasy" released in 1980. After that, the 80s and 90s did not produce any big titles with the word "Woman" as the main theme. So? Why all this history of "Woman" themed songs? What's my point? What does it mean to be a woman? VIVA community wants to know. I think Neil, Bob, Billy, The Gibbs, and John, have all tried to answer the question for women, but how many women have written a song about Women? We might bark up Melissa Etheridge's tree or the Indigo Girls, but as far as I've heard of their songs, I've not found one focused completely on the word or theme "Women" --- which has me believing that neither straight or lesbian women really know what to say about the word "woman" or "women" yet I have just thought of one artist who did come up with something in the 90s: Shania Twain. "Man, I feel like a Woman." Oh, wait. Another artist just came to mind - Whitney Houston (in the 80s) did do a remake of "I'm Every Woman" which was a Pop Hit for her.
By Shanon Angermeyer Norman4 months ago in Viva
Sarah Pochin: The Six-Vote Revolution That Shook British Politics
Introduction Sarah Pochin has quickly become one of the most intriguing figures in British politics. After winning her seat in Parliament by just six votes, she achieved something historic — becoming Reform UK’s first female MP and rewriting the conversation around grassroots victories in modern democracy.
By Shazzed Hossain Shajal4 months ago in Viva
Stop Harassing Women who Smoke. Top Story - October 2025.
I could have smoked three cigarettes for how long it took me to find the right image to put with this article. I'm sure the AI generators don't struggle like I do trying to force an image into the pixel spot wanting a specific mood/look but not getting the number of pixels correct. Ugh. Ok, now that I've vented, what was I wanting to talk about today? Oh yeah, women who smoke. I did not light a cigarette while I wrote this venting prelude paragraph. I just wanted you to know that because as I move on to the next paragraph, I'm going to refill my coffee cup and then light a cigarette.
By Shanon Angermeyer Norman4 months ago in Viva
