The international arena is witnessing unprecedented diplomatic polarization following US President Donald Trump's invitations to several world leaders to attend the inaugural meeting of what he calls the "Peace Council." This new entity, scheduled to hold its first session on February 19, has sparked widespread debate about its future and its impact on the existing international order, with some viewing it as a potential alternative or parallel to the United Nations system.
Alliance map: between the populist right and adherence to traditional institutions
Initial reactions revealed a division reflecting the ideological leanings of world leaders. Governments representing the right wing or those adopting policies aligned with Trump's approach were quick to accept the invitation, most notably Argentine President Javier Pérez and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who confirmed his intention to participate. In contrast, the invitation was met with staunch rejection from traditional European powers committed to the existing international order. France, Italy, Norway, and Croatia all declined to join the council, maintaining that the United Nations is the sole legitimate body for maintaining international peace and security.
European hesitation and the Czech position
In the gray area, Romania's position stood out, with President Nicuor Dan expressing conditional reservations, linking participation to the nature of discussions with American partners and a review of the Council's charter. Meanwhile, in Prague, Andrej Babiš announced his refusal to join, emphasizing the importance of unified consultation within the European Union, reflecting European concerns that this council could fragment the unified European stance on international issues.
Dimensions of the Council: From the Gaza War to the Marginalization of the United Nations
This initiative is particularly significant given its direct link to Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza, as the “Peace Council” is slated to oversee the “National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.” However, the Council’s ambitions extend beyond the Palestinian issue; its charter seeks to play a broader role in resolving global armed conflicts. The Council’s preamble includes an implicit criticism of the United Nations, calling for the abandonment of institutions that have “failed.” This has drawn criticism from leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who have advocated instead for strengthening and reforming the UN rather than replacing it with parallel entities that could undermine international law.
February 19 represents a real test of the US administration’s ability to reshape international alliances outside of traditional frameworks, at a time when the world is facing geopolitical challenges that require comprehensive, not selective, international cooperation.
