World experts and authorities have raised questions about the role of the Peace Council organized by United States President Donald Trump.
Initially announced as a project to oversee the reconstruction and ceasefire of the Gaza Strip, Trump has since stated that the group’s role could expand to address other armed conflicts.
He even
According to a copy of the council’s draft charter obtained by Reuters, it will have a mission to promote peace around the world and work to resolve conflicts.
In any case, it is not clear what the effective role of the organization will be, its legal authority and what its enforcement instruments will be.
Still, the group is at the center of the global debate and renews questions about the state of multilateralism today.
Impact of the Peace Council on World Order
HAS CNN BrazilInternational Relations professor Priscila Caneparo assesses that Trump’s Peace Council highlights a break with the norms and customs that were in force on the international scene, with increasing informality in multilateralism.
She considers that, after the Second World War, multilateralism was institutionalized through formal meetings — such as blocs such as Brics, G20 and G7 — or through institutions, which would be international organizations.
“Basically, we have replaced the rules coming, mainly from international organizations, with more direct negotiation between powerful states”, he comments.
“So, we go back to that logic of force from the 19th century. And we will no longer have norms, we will basically have the ability to impose or guarantee agreements. So it is literally the voice of the strongest”, explains the expert.
Lourival Saint’Anna, analyst of International gives CNN Brazilhighlights that Trump is trying to impose a new model of conflict resolution, with the institutionalization of a “unitary” and “economic” power. “It is an attempt to replace multilateral institutions”, he adds.
However, he reinforces that the source of legitimacy of multilateralism is different from what the US president tries to build with the Peace Council.
“In multilateralism there is power through military and economic force… but also through political consistency, political discourse is also important within multilateralism, it is a source of legitimacy. This part was eliminated by this Trump system, the source of legitimacy is him, he is the arbitrator”, he highlights.
Thus, Sant’Anna assesses that the council lacks something “essential”, which is the ability to convince — for example, even of Israelis and Palestinians,
“Erosion” of the UN
Priscila Caneparo also warns of the “erosion” of the UN’s centrality on the international scene, which could lead to greater fragility for the organization and more questions about its role.
The possible “conflict” with the United Nations was cited in France’s justification for not participating in the Peace Council, which raised doubts about the group’s compatibility with the UN Charter.
Lourival Sant’Anna considers that the United Nations’ inability to make decisions is “palpable”, due to the veto power in the Security Council — exactly of countries like the United States.
“In this political vacuum, Trump tries to exercise unilateral power through his economic and military strength”, comments the analyst.
And still thinking about the impact that the creation of the council could have on diplomacy, Priscila Caneparo highlights that peace could become the result of a strategy, “a way of bargaining”, and not of the basic structure of international society — of human rights, self-determination, international normativity.
“There would no longer be a need for mediation, but basically the United States would be the great perpetrators of peace in the world,” he commented.
Can the Peace Council replace the UN?
In any case, experts do not understand that Trump’s Peace Council can replace the UN.
Firstly, Caneparo draws attention to the difference in the structure of the creation of the Trump council and the United Nations.
“There is no way it can replace the UN, because the UN is an international organization, that is, it is a subject of public international law, constituted by sovereign States and arising from a multilateral treaty”, he highlights.
Furthermore, it draws attention to the vast activities of the UN, not restricted to conflict resolution. The United Nations has agencies on cultural heritage (Unesco), childhood (Unicef), health (WHO), refugees (UNHCR), the high commissioner for Human Rights and several other points.
“So I don’t think it replaces the UN, but we see a rupture with the multilateral institutional system that we know”, he concludes.
Sant’Anna ponders the ineffectiveness of the UN and draws attention to the fact that international institutions have not been effective in the Arab-Israeli conflict — including violations of Security Council resolutions by Israel –, assessing that the new group opens a new attempt at a resolution.
Still, the analyst reinforces the point about the fragility and lack of legitimacy of the new Peace Council.
“The UN is paralyzed, so it left a vacuum that it [Trump] try to occupy. But if it is unfeasible due to the veto power, this model that Trump offers is fragile due to a lack of legitimacy”, he concludes.
*with information from Reuters
