Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

US President Donald Trump chose Davos as the platform to announce the establishment of the Global Peace Council, a move that immediately placed the initiative, its structure and purpose, at the centre of global debate. Questions are now being raised about the motives behind its creation, the timing of its launch, and its intended role, particularly as it presents itself as a framework for conflict resolution beginning with Gaza but not limited to a single arena.

While linking the council directly to Trump may seem natural, several elements warrant closer scrutiny, most notably timing, form, and method, as well as the effort to give the council an international dimension by involving a broad range of leaders, including the invitation extended to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This reflects Trump’s attempt to draw major powers, especially permanent members of the UN Security Council, into the initiative, allowing him to present it as an alternative platform capable of producing outcomes where existing mechanisms have failed. In this context, the Ukrainian conflict resurfaces, with signs that Trump seeks to end it through the council and register it as a political achievement.

The announcement of the council and the move toward monopolising solution-making, starting with Gaza, opens a broader debate about the legitimacy and effectiveness of international decision-making. Presenting the council as a “lean” and fast-acting body free from bureaucratic paralysis amounts to a direct critique of the United Nations system, its decision-making process, and its inability to manage major crises.

Viewing this step in isolation, however, would be misleading. The council fits within a wider attempt to re-engineer the international order according to current power balances rather than the post–World War II framework. Trump, who openly criticized international institutions during his first term, has consistently argued that decision-making authority should reflect financial contribution, maintaining that the United States, as the largest donor, deserves a decisive role. This logic also shaped his confrontations with NATO and his repeated references to the cost of America’s military presence in Europe.

What is new today is not the critique itself, but the shift toward proposing a practical alternative based on imposing solutions rather than extended negotiations. This allows Trump to present his approach as a viable substitute for the existing international system. The trajectory is reinforced by Washington’s withdrawal from several international organisations, suggesting a gradual construction of alternatives rather than an abrupt rupture.

The key question remains whether the Global Peace Council is a project tied to Trump personally or a rebranding of earlier initiatives such as the “Deal of the Century” and the Abraham Accords. What is clear is that Trump now positions himself as a leading figure of the global conservative right, seeking to set international decision-making centers to this orientation. Divisions within the European Union over how to engage with his policies, and the distinction between favored governments such as Italy and marginalised ones such as Spain, underscore the ideological nature of these emerging alliances.

Redrawing the international landscape under Trump’s vision also rests on financial alliances and economic interests, including control over traditional and future energy sources, strategic trade routes, and resource-rich regions. Within this context, his growing interest in the Arctic becomes clearer, an interest tied to the Alaska meeting that laid the groundwork for a new cooperative vision, where Russian technology and nuclear icebreakers are positioned to serve broader American economic ambitions.

Most significantly, presenting a unilateral vision for resolving the Gaza conflict, under the “Riviera” model without explicitly naming it, effectively sidelines the UN Security Council and removes UN resolutions from the solution framework. It promotes an approach that prioritises economic and service-based arrangements over political solutions. A shift that, if successful, could reshape how conflicts are managed globally.

In short, the establishment of the Global Peace Council, whether it succeeds or fails, marks a confrontational moment in international politics. The world is entering a pivotal phase in which the international order and the mechanisms of global decision-making are being reshaped, marginalizing what exists while actively promoting what is coming.