The President of the United States, Donald Trump, confirmed on Tuesday (20) that the Peace Council created by his government could, in the future, replace the role played by the United Nations (UN) in mediating international conflicts, stating that the current multilateral entity has failed to help him resolve wars since the beginning of his second term.
“I wish we didn’t need a Peace Council,” Trump said at a White House news conference. “With all the wars I resolved, the United Nations never helped me in any of them,” he recalled. Asked about the scope of the new structure, the president stated that the council “maybe” could replace the UN, adding that the organization “never lived up to expectations”.
According to Trump, the Peace Council emerged after repeated frustrations with the actions of the United Nations.
“The UN should have resolved all the wars that I resolved. I never turned to them, I never even thought about appealing,” said the president.
The Peace Council was initially designed to oversee the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, as part of the second phase of the US plan for the territory after more than two years of war between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas. However, according to the American press, the council’s statute goes beyond the conflict in Gaza and proposes that the organization have a broad mandate to act in different crises around the world.
According to an official statement from the White House, the Peace Council will be chaired by Trump himself, who will have final decision-making power over proposals and resolutions. The statute provides that approved decisions come into force immediately, with the possibility of a subsequent veto by the council president. Trump will be able to lead the Peace Council for life or until he resigns, including after completing his term as US president. However, once he leaves the position, it will be a future American president who will designate the United States representative for this role.
The American government has already sent invitations to several countries to participate in the council. Some of the guests have already made their acceptance public, including Hungary, Argentina, Belarus, Vietnam, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Paraguay, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. Other governments, such as Russia, China, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Australia and India, also received the invitation, but are still analyzing the terms of the proposal.
According to sources heard by NBC Newsthe statute of the Peace Council provides for the possibility of permanent seats in the body upon payment of US$1 billion. Without payment, countries could participate in the council for an initial period of three years. To date, there is no public confirmation that any government has made the full payment to be a “permanent member”. On Tuesday, however, a senior White House official said that such contributions are voluntary.
“Membership does not entail any obligation for mandatory financing beyond what a State or partner chooses to contribute voluntarily,” this official explained to the press.
France and Norway, who were invited by Trump, have already announced that they do not intend to participate in the Peace Council. French authorities stated that the project raises doubts about respect for the principles and structure of the UN, especially the Security Council. In response to the French refusal, Trump threatened to impose 200% tariffs on the country’s wine and champagne.
In an interview with the broadcaster Euronews During the World Economic Forum in Davos, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot said that Trump is trying, with the Peace Council, to “replace the United Nations system” with a council under personal control.
“Creating something new to bypass the UN is certainly not the path Belgium intends to follow,” said the chancellor.
In turn, the Chancellor of Austria, Christian Stocker, stated this Thursday (22) that he sees the Peace Council as a “parallel structure” to the United Nations.
“Everything that leads to peace is, of course, worthy of support. On the other hand, the question is: what is the structure like? We already have an organization created for such cases, which is the United Nations. And I don’t believe that parallel organizations should be created”, Stocker declared to the press upon arriving at a European Union summit in Brussels. Despite the speech, the head of the Austrian government said that Vienna is still analyzing the invitation sent by Trump.
The Peace Council was officially launched this Thursday (22) during the World Economic Forum in Davos. In his speech to those present at the launch, Trump stated that “everyone wants to be part” of the new organization and said that the council will act “in cooperation with the United Nations”. The council’s launch ceremony was attended by leaders and representatives from countries that have already joined the initiative.
Excessive US power?
To the Irish broadcaster RTÉInternational Crisis Group think tank analyst Maya Ungar stated that Trump’s Peace Council concentrates excessive power in the United States.
“The UN Security Council, despite blockages and disagreements, is a space where great powers discuss cooperation and, very importantly, its limits. This type of constructive dialogue is unlikely in an institution created with such a clear hierarchy of power”, he assessed.
In the assessment of doctor in International Relations Igor Lucena, the Peace Council was born with structural weaknesses that compromise its political viability. For the analyst, it is being conceived as a kind of “personalized UN” under the direct leadership of the American president, which could reduce its international acceptance.
“I think this council was born with the idea of being a kind of UN registered or pulled by President Donald Trump. And, therefore, I believe it won’t work,” Lucena said to People’s Gazette. According to him, the diplomatic isolation faced by Trump in multilateral forums highlights this scenario. “President Trump’s decisions and ideas are being rejected by the international community. We see this clearly at events like Davos, where the atmosphere has intensified, especially against European leaders, who have been rejecting these proposals.”
Lucena recognizes that the United Nations itself faces limitations, especially in the Security Council, but assesses that the alternative proposed by the United States does not correct these problems.
“When we think about creating a new council led by the United States, it would be necessary to reflect on a structure of equal representation among its peers,” he said. For him, this condition is not present in the institutional design of the Peace Council.
Lucena also highlighted that recent actions by the American government weaken any attempt at multilateral leadership.
“The actions that the United States has been taking, especially now in relation to Denmark, the European Union as a whole and France, with the increase in tariffs, call into question any possibility of success for President Trump’s initiatives to create an international peace council”, he assessed.
According to Lucena, there is a central contradiction between the White House’s discourse and practice.
“At the same time that he (Trump) calls on the international community to form a council that overlaps with the UN and is led by him, he is unable to dialogue with the members themselves. When he threatens countries like Great Britain through tariffs, he completely compromises the credibility of this council”, he stated.
In the expert’s view, the proposal made some sense in its initial stage, restricted to the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, but lost legitimacy as Trump expanded the scope and adopted a more confrontational stance.
“The idea even had some basis when thinking about the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, but, from the moment he started to pressure and, by force, tried to impose issues such as the seizure of Greenland, he destroyed this proposal”, he said. “I can’t see this going forward at all. I think it’s something completely doomed to failure,” he concluded.
