Peace Council: An alternative or competitor to United Nations?
The announcement by the Donald Trump administration of the establishment of what was termed the “Peace Council” in Gaza has reopened a deeper debate about the nature of the transformations it seeks to bring to the international system, and the limits of its relationship with the United Nations system, which it has criticized for years. The initiative, presented ostensibly as a new mechanism for post-war management in Gaza and for promoting regional stability, appears, according to many diplomats and analysts, to be a step that transcends the Palestinian context, attempting to re-engineer the roles of multilateral institutions entirely.
Concern intensified, particularly when it became clear that the draft charter of the council, sent to the invited countries, makes no mention of the Gaza Strip whatsoever, but rather speaks in general terms about the need for “a more flexible and effective international body for peacebuilding.” This vague wording, as described by the Financial Times, opened the door to a broader interpretation: that Washington is not merely seeking a special mechanism for Gaza, but rather an alternative model that could be applied to other conflicts, positioning it as a rival—or even a replacement—for the United Nations and the Security Council.
This comes in an even more controversial context following Trump's decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations and bodies affiliated with or associated with the United Nations, justifying it by claiming that these entities 'do not serve American interests.' This simultaneous withdrawal and the establishment of a new entity under direct American leadership reinforced the impression that Washington is not only withdrawing from the existing system but also seeking to build a parallel track subject to its political and financial conditions. The charter defines the 'Peace Council' as an international organization aimed at promoting stability, restoring the rule of law, and achieving lasting peace in areas of conflict or threat. However, the way the council is structured reflects an unusual concentration of power in the hands of the American president himself. Trump will be the council's chair and will have the final say in selecting members, setting the agenda, forming subsidiary bodies, and even dissolving them when necessary. Moreover, while the Council's decisions are initially adopted by a majority vote, they remain subject to its final approval, effectively granting it a de facto, albeit unnamed, veto power.
What most alarmed European capitals was the draft charter's provisions regarding financial contributions. While the US administration denied the existence of 'mandatory membership fees,' reports indicated that countries seeking a permanent seat would be required to contribute at least $1 billion, with special privileges for those who paid more. This linkage between political influence and financial capacity fundamentally contradicts the UN's logic of sovereign equality, even if international realities grant major powers greater influence within the Security Council.
The proposed Council structure also reinforces its personal-presidential character: a top level comprised exclusively of heads of state under Trump's leadership, followed by a general executive council, and then a special executive council for Gaza, with the possibility of establishing similar councils for other conflicts such as Ukraine or Venezuela. This design suggests a tiered approach that could expand over time into an alternative international platform for mediation and crisis management, but operating under explicitly American rules.
Trump's invitations to leaders, in addition to contacts with European countries, demonstrate his desire to lend international legitimacy to the project. However, leaks indicate that several countries strongly oppose the draft, viewing it as an attempt to establish a selective system controlled financially and politically by Washington, far removed from the institutional multilateralism represented by the United Nations.
It is noteworthy that the White House publicly insists that the Council's current focus is solely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but leaves the door open for future expansion to include other peace agreements 'achieved by Trump.' This deliberate ambiguity reflects a strategy based on first gauging international reactions, and then expanding later if it does not encounter significant resistance.
Conversely, critics of the project argue that the problem lies not only in its competition with the United Nations, but also in its undermining of the principles of collective international law. The United Nations, despite its flaws and shortcomings, represents a global framework encompassing all nations, while the 'Peace Council' appears more like an American-led alliance with an institutional veneer, limited accountability mechanisms, and controversial financial roles. Most importantly, this move is part of a broader pattern in Trump's foreign policy of reducing multilateral commitments and relying on flexible arrangements subject to direct American influence. The withdrawal from 66 international bodies is not an isolated incident, but rather an indication of a view that existing institutions restrict American freedom of action more than they serve it.
Nevertheless, the question remains: Will the 'Peace Council' succeed in becoming a genuine alternative to the United Nations and the Security Council? The reality is that building a parallel international system requires broad acceptance from major and middle powers, enormous resources, and legal legitimacy that is difficult to achieve outside the framework of the United Nations. Furthermore, managing complex conflicts requires relative neutrality, which may not be available in an entity led by a major party in many conflicts.
Ultimately, the 'Peace Council' appears less like a complete replacement for the United Nations and more like a tool for political and institutional pressure to reshape the balance of power within the international system. It sends a message that Washington is prepared to bypass existing institutions if they do not align with its vision, even if the price is further fragmentation in global governance. Whether the Council becomes a permanent player or remains a passing experiment, it clearly reveals that the world has entered a phase of conflict not only between states, but between different models for managing the international system itself: institutional pluralism led by the United Nations, versus selective arrangements led by the major powers, foremost among them the United States.
Hasan Dajah - Professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
The announcement by the Donald Trump administration of the establishment of what was termed the “Peace Council” in Gaza has reopened a deeper debate about the nature of the transformations it seeks to bring to the international system, and the limits of its relationship with the United Nations system, which it has criticized for years. The initiative, presented ostensibly as a new mechanism for post-war management in Gaza and for promoting regional stability, appears, according to many diplomats and analysts, to be a step that transcends the Palestinian context, attempting to re-engineer the roles of multilateral institutions entirely.
Concern intensified, particularly when it became clear that the draft charter of the council, sent to the invited countries, makes no mention of the Gaza Strip whatsoever, but rather speaks in general terms about the need for “a more flexible and effective international body for peacebuilding.” This vague wording, as described by the Financial Times, opened the door to a broader interpretation: that Washington is not merely seeking a special mechanism for Gaza, but rather an alternative model that could be applied to other conflicts, positioning it as a rival—or even a replacement—for the United Nations and the Security Council.
This comes in an even more controversial context following Trump's decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations and bodies affiliated with or associated with the United Nations, justifying it by claiming that these entities 'do not serve American interests.' This simultaneous withdrawal and the establishment of a new entity under direct American leadership reinforced the impression that Washington is not only withdrawing from the existing system but also seeking to build a parallel track subject to its political and financial conditions. The charter defines the 'Peace Council' as an international organization aimed at promoting stability, restoring the rule of law, and achieving lasting peace in areas of conflict or threat. However, the way the council is structured reflects an unusual concentration of power in the hands of the American president himself. Trump will be the council's chair and will have the final say in selecting members, setting the agenda, forming subsidiary bodies, and even dissolving them when necessary. Moreover, while the Council's decisions are initially adopted by a majority vote, they remain subject to its final approval, effectively granting it a de facto, albeit unnamed, veto power.
What most alarmed European capitals was the draft charter's provisions regarding financial contributions. While the US administration denied the existence of 'mandatory membership fees,' reports indicated that countries seeking a permanent seat would be required to contribute at least $1 billion, with special privileges for those who paid more. This linkage between political influence and financial capacity fundamentally contradicts the UN's logic of sovereign equality, even if international realities grant major powers greater influence within the Security Council.
The proposed Council structure also reinforces its personal-presidential character: a top level comprised exclusively of heads of state under Trump's leadership, followed by a general executive council, and then a special executive council for Gaza, with the possibility of establishing similar councils for other conflicts such as Ukraine or Venezuela. This design suggests a tiered approach that could expand over time into an alternative international platform for mediation and crisis management, but operating under explicitly American rules.
Trump's invitations to leaders, in addition to contacts with European countries, demonstrate his desire to lend international legitimacy to the project. However, leaks indicate that several countries strongly oppose the draft, viewing it as an attempt to establish a selective system controlled financially and politically by Washington, far removed from the institutional multilateralism represented by the United Nations.
It is noteworthy that the White House publicly insists that the Council's current focus is solely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but leaves the door open for future expansion to include other peace agreements 'achieved by Trump.' This deliberate ambiguity reflects a strategy based on first gauging international reactions, and then expanding later if it does not encounter significant resistance.
Conversely, critics of the project argue that the problem lies not only in its competition with the United Nations, but also in its undermining of the principles of collective international law. The United Nations, despite its flaws and shortcomings, represents a global framework encompassing all nations, while the 'Peace Council' appears more like an American-led alliance with an institutional veneer, limited accountability mechanisms, and controversial financial roles. Most importantly, this move is part of a broader pattern in Trump's foreign policy of reducing multilateral commitments and relying on flexible arrangements subject to direct American influence. The withdrawal from 66 international bodies is not an isolated incident, but rather an indication of a view that existing institutions restrict American freedom of action more than they serve it.
Nevertheless, the question remains: Will the 'Peace Council' succeed in becoming a genuine alternative to the United Nations and the Security Council? The reality is that building a parallel international system requires broad acceptance from major and middle powers, enormous resources, and legal legitimacy that is difficult to achieve outside the framework of the United Nations. Furthermore, managing complex conflicts requires relative neutrality, which may not be available in an entity led by a major party in many conflicts.
Ultimately, the 'Peace Council' appears less like a complete replacement for the United Nations and more like a tool for political and institutional pressure to reshape the balance of power within the international system. It sends a message that Washington is prepared to bypass existing institutions if they do not align with its vision, even if the price is further fragmentation in global governance. Whether the Council becomes a permanent player or remains a passing experiment, it clearly reveals that the world has entered a phase of conflict not only between states, but between different models for managing the international system itself: institutional pluralism led by the United Nations, versus selective arrangements led by the major powers, foremost among them the United States.
Hasan Dajah - Professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
The announcement by the Donald Trump administration of the establishment of what was termed the “Peace Council” in Gaza has reopened a deeper debate about the nature of the transformations it seeks to bring to the international system, and the limits of its relationship with the United Nations system, which it has criticized for years. The initiative, presented ostensibly as a new mechanism for post-war management in Gaza and for promoting regional stability, appears, according to many diplomats and analysts, to be a step that transcends the Palestinian context, attempting to re-engineer the roles of multilateral institutions entirely.
Concern intensified, particularly when it became clear that the draft charter of the council, sent to the invited countries, makes no mention of the Gaza Strip whatsoever, but rather speaks in general terms about the need for “a more flexible and effective international body for peacebuilding.” This vague wording, as described by the Financial Times, opened the door to a broader interpretation: that Washington is not merely seeking a special mechanism for Gaza, but rather an alternative model that could be applied to other conflicts, positioning it as a rival—or even a replacement—for the United Nations and the Security Council.
This comes in an even more controversial context following Trump's decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations and bodies affiliated with or associated with the United Nations, justifying it by claiming that these entities 'do not serve American interests.' This simultaneous withdrawal and the establishment of a new entity under direct American leadership reinforced the impression that Washington is not only withdrawing from the existing system but also seeking to build a parallel track subject to its political and financial conditions. The charter defines the 'Peace Council' as an international organization aimed at promoting stability, restoring the rule of law, and achieving lasting peace in areas of conflict or threat. However, the way the council is structured reflects an unusual concentration of power in the hands of the American president himself. Trump will be the council's chair and will have the final say in selecting members, setting the agenda, forming subsidiary bodies, and even dissolving them when necessary. Moreover, while the Council's decisions are initially adopted by a majority vote, they remain subject to its final approval, effectively granting it a de facto, albeit unnamed, veto power.
What most alarmed European capitals was the draft charter's provisions regarding financial contributions. While the US administration denied the existence of 'mandatory membership fees,' reports indicated that countries seeking a permanent seat would be required to contribute at least $1 billion, with special privileges for those who paid more. This linkage between political influence and financial capacity fundamentally contradicts the UN's logic of sovereign equality, even if international realities grant major powers greater influence within the Security Council.
The proposed Council structure also reinforces its personal-presidential character: a top level comprised exclusively of heads of state under Trump's leadership, followed by a general executive council, and then a special executive council for Gaza, with the possibility of establishing similar councils for other conflicts such as Ukraine or Venezuela. This design suggests a tiered approach that could expand over time into an alternative international platform for mediation and crisis management, but operating under explicitly American rules.
Trump's invitations to leaders, in addition to contacts with European countries, demonstrate his desire to lend international legitimacy to the project. However, leaks indicate that several countries strongly oppose the draft, viewing it as an attempt to establish a selective system controlled financially and politically by Washington, far removed from the institutional multilateralism represented by the United Nations.
It is noteworthy that the White House publicly insists that the Council's current focus is solely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but leaves the door open for future expansion to include other peace agreements 'achieved by Trump.' This deliberate ambiguity reflects a strategy based on first gauging international reactions, and then expanding later if it does not encounter significant resistance.
Conversely, critics of the project argue that the problem lies not only in its competition with the United Nations, but also in its undermining of the principles of collective international law. The United Nations, despite its flaws and shortcomings, represents a global framework encompassing all nations, while the 'Peace Council' appears more like an American-led alliance with an institutional veneer, limited accountability mechanisms, and controversial financial roles. Most importantly, this move is part of a broader pattern in Trump's foreign policy of reducing multilateral commitments and relying on flexible arrangements subject to direct American influence. The withdrawal from 66 international bodies is not an isolated incident, but rather an indication of a view that existing institutions restrict American freedom of action more than they serve it.
Nevertheless, the question remains: Will the 'Peace Council' succeed in becoming a genuine alternative to the United Nations and the Security Council? The reality is that building a parallel international system requires broad acceptance from major and middle powers, enormous resources, and legal legitimacy that is difficult to achieve outside the framework of the United Nations. Furthermore, managing complex conflicts requires relative neutrality, which may not be available in an entity led by a major party in many conflicts.
Ultimately, the 'Peace Council' appears less like a complete replacement for the United Nations and more like a tool for political and institutional pressure to reshape the balance of power within the international system. It sends a message that Washington is prepared to bypass existing institutions if they do not align with its vision, even if the price is further fragmentation in global governance. Whether the Council becomes a permanent player or remains a passing experiment, it clearly reveals that the world has entered a phase of conflict not only between states, but between different models for managing the international system itself: institutional pluralism led by the United Nations, versus selective arrangements led by the major powers, foremost among them the United States.
Hasan Dajah - Professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
comments
Peace Council: An alternative or competitor to United Nations?
comments