Experts and global authorities have voiced significant questions regarding the role and potential ramifications of the Peace Council initiated by former U.S. President Donald Trump. Initially presented as an endeavor to oversee reconstruction and ceasefire efforts in the Gaza Strip, Trump has since indicated that the group’s mandate could broaden to encompass other armed conflicts worldwide. This expansion includes a controversial suggestion that the council “could” ultimately replace the United Nations, signaling a profound challenge to established international frameworks. The initiative has already garnered notable participation from figures like Pope Leo, as confirmed by a cardinal, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, highlighting its immediate relevance and the high-profile nature of its early members.
Trump’s vision for global conflicts
A leaked draft of the council’s charter, obtained by Reuters, outlines its mission to foster peace globally and actively work towards conflict resolution. However, critical details remain opaque, including the organization’s effective role, its legal authority, and the specific instruments it will employ for enforcement. Despite this ambiguity, the group has positioned itself at the epicenter of global discussions, reigniting questions about the current state and future trajectory of multilateralism.
Eroding multilateral norms
Priscila Caneparo, a professor of International Relations, noted that Trump’s Peace Council signifies a departure from established international norms and customs, manifesting an increasing informality within multilateral frameworks. She emphasizes that, since World War II, multilateralism has been institutionalized through formal gatherings, such as those of blocs like the BRICS, G20, and G7, and through robust international organizations. This shift represents a move away from these structured mechanisms.
“Fundamentally, we are seeing a substitution of rules derived primarily from international organizations with more direct negotiations between powerful states,” Caneparo stated. She further clarified, “This returns us to the 19th-century logic of force. We will no longer have established norms, but rather the capacity to impose or guarantee agreements. It literally becomes the voice of the strongest.”
Authority and legitimacy concerns
Lourival Sant’Anna, an international analyst, highlights Trump’s attempt to impose a new conflict resolution model, one that institutionalizes a “unitary” and “economic” power. He views this as a direct challenge, “It is an attempt to replace multilateral institutions.” Sant’Anna stresses that the legitimacy of multilateralism stems from a broader foundation than what Trump’s council seeks to establish.
He further elaborated on this distinction, noting, “In multilateralism, power comes from military and economic strength, but also from political consistency; the political discourse is crucial and a source of legitimacy. This element is eliminated in Trump’s system; he becomes the sole arbiter of legitimacy.” Consequently, Sant’Anna believes the council lacks a crucial component: the capacity for persuasion, even among parties like the Israelis and Palestinians, given Israel’s prior criticisms of the initiative.
United Nations’ diminishing influence
Caneparo also warns of the “erosion” of the United Nations’ central role on the international stage, potentially leading to greater fragility for the organization and intensified scrutiny of its purpose. This potential conflict with the UN was explicitly cited by France as its reason for declining participation in the Peace Council, raising serious doubts about the group’s compatibility with the UN Charter.
Sant’Anna acknowledges the “palpable” inability of the United Nations to make decisive decisions, largely attributed to the veto power within the Security Council, which includes countries like the United States. “Into this political vacuum, Trump seeks to exert unilateral power through his economic and military might,” the analyst observed. This context provides fertile ground for alternative approaches to global governance.
Diplomacy shifts towards bargaining
Considering the potential impact on diplomacy, Caneparo underscored that peace could transform into the outcome of a strategy, “a mode of bargaining,” rather than stemming from the foundational structure of international society—which is rooted in human rights, self-determination, and international normativity. This would fundamentally alter the framework for resolving global disputes.
She commented that “there would no longer be a need for mediation; instead, the United States would essentially become the primary peace enforcer of the world.” This scenario suggests a significant centralization of power in international peace efforts, potentially sidelining established diplomatic channels.
Can Trump’s council replace the UN?
Despite these profound implications, specialists do not believe Trump’s Peace Council can truly replace the United Nations. Caneparo first points to the fundamental structural differences in their creation. “It cannot replace the UN because the UN is an international organization, meaning it is a subject of public international law, composed of sovereign states and established by a multilateral treaty,” she emphasized.
Furthermore, she highlighted the expansive scope of the UN’s activities, which extend far beyond conflict resolution. The United Nations encompasses numerous specialized agencies dedicated to cultural heritage (UNESCO), childhood (UNICEF), health (WHO), refugees (UNHCR), the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and many other critical areas. “Therefore, I do not believe it replaces the UN, but we are certainly observing a rupture with the institutional multilateral system we are familiar with,” she concluded.
Sant’Anna reflected on the UN’s ineffectiveness and pointed out that international institutions have largely failed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, noting repeated violations of Security Council resolutions by Israel. He views Trump’s new group as a fresh attempt at resolution, albeit one with inherent weaknesses. The analyst reinforces his point about the fragility and lack of broad legitimacy of the proposed Peace Council. “The UN is paralyzed, creating a vacuum that Trump is trying to fill. But if the UN is unviable due to veto power, this model offered by Trump is fragile due to a lack of legitimacy,” he concluded, summarizing the complex challenges facing global governance in 2025.