In early 2026, a significant diplomatic development unfolded as the United States, under President Donald Trump, extended invitations to approximately sixty nations and regional stakeholders to join a newly formed international body called the “Board of Peace”, of which he would be the chairman for life. Launched in the fragile aftermath of a Gaza ceasefire endorsed by the United Nations Security Council in November 2025, this initiative represents an ambitious and unconventional effort by the U.S. President to reshape multilateral conflict resolution, possibly replacing the UN. The responses from invitees reveal a complex mix of geopolitical alignments, ideological affinities, and strategic calculations, ranging from enthusiasm to marked caution. Major powers remain cautious In Europe, among the earliest and most enthusiastic acceptances were those from Albania and Hungary. Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama publicly shared Trump’s personal letter on social media, describing it as a monumental achievement that elevates Albania’s international standing. His enthusiastic response went beyond diplomatic protocol, serving as a declaration of national pride and strategic alignment with Washington. Rama’s pledge to do “whatever it takes” to enhance Albania’s reputation and dignity reflects a broader pattern: smaller nations seeking a distinctive role in the evolving global order. Similarly, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán – a longtime supporter of Trump’s policies in Europe, expressed unequivocal backing. His acceptance was confirmed via social media and statements by Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, who framed the Board of Peace as recognition of Hungary’s efforts to promote stability in volatile regions. Orbán’s alignment fits his established foreign policy, which prioritizes national sovereignty, conservative values, and skepticism toward multilateral institutions viewed as overly bureaucratic or aligned with Western liberalism. Other nations outside Europe have also signaled support, often motivated by pragmatic interests or a desire to assert diplomatic independence. Argentine President Javier Milei, known for his outspoken criticism of traditional establishments, promptly accepted and portrayed participation as an honor. He presented the Board as a platform to combat terrorism and advance peace and freedom – rhetoric consistent with his populist emphasis on sovereignty and distrust of conventional international organisations. Meanwhile, Vietnam’s leader Tô Lâm confirmed acceptance, suggesting that some non-Western powers see value in engaging with the U.S.-led initiative to enhance their own regional and global influence. In sharp contrast, reactions from major traditional powers and key regional players have been reserved or non-committal. Invitations sent to the leaders of France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, India (where Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s office has remained silent), and others have generated little public enthusiasm. The European Union and its leading member states, notably France and Germany, have adopted a cautious silence, reflecting deep skepticism toward a U.S.-centric structure that appears to change the post-World War Two international order. This reticence highlights an emerging transatlantic rift, with European nations wary of being sidelined or linked to a process some perceive as colonial in tone. Trump invites France, Germany, and EU Commission President to join controversial ‘Board of Peace’ European diplomats have privately expressed concern that the Board’s design and objectives could undermine the United Nations’ role and erode the multilateral consensus that has long guided international peace efforts. Many fear the initiative, especially given Trump’s lifetime chairmanship, may function more as a vehicle for unilateral U.S. influence than as a genuinely collaborative endeavor. Similar reservations prevail in the Middle East. Egypt and Jordan – both critical mediators in the Gaza conflict, have indicated they are reviewing the invitation documents through internal legal channels before deciding. Turkey’s involvement, particularly with Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan serving on the Gaza Executive Board, has drawn sharp objections from Israel, which alleges inadequate prior coordination and warns that Ankara’s ties to Hamas could compromise the board’s legitimacy. Pakistan acknowledged receipt of the invitation but stressed its continued commitment to existing UN-led efforts, offering no indication of acceptance. Controversies over funding The Board of Peace itself stands as one of the most unconventional diplomatic projects in recent memory. Initially launched as a core element of the U.S.-brokered Gaza ceasefire plan (endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in November 2025), it aims to oversee Gaza’s post-war transition—including the establishment of a Palestinian technocratic administration, reconstruction, the disarmament of Hamas, and economic recovery. Yet its scope has rapidly broadened, suggesting ambitions to become a long-term alternative framework for managing global conflicts. At its center is President Trump, who assumes lifetime chairmanship. The core body consists of invited national leaders, supported by operational entities such as the Gaza Executive Board – a mix of government officials, diplomats, and influential figures with pronounced pro-Israel leanings, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and billionaire investor Marc Rowan. On the ground, Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov serves as High Representative, while a Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), led by technocrat Ali Shaath, handles daily governance. The initiative’s most controversial aspect is its funding model. Reports indicate that the draft charter requires a $1 billion contribution within the first year for members seeking permanent status beyond an initial three-year term. The White House has rejected descriptions of this as a mandatory “fee,” insisting that contributions are voluntary and dedicated solely to Gaza’s reconstruction. Critics, however, decry it as “pay-to-play” diplomacy – an unprecedented departure from the norms of international peacekeeping bodies – raising serious questions about legitimacy, equity, and the potential commodification of peace efforts. Throughout this process, Trump appears determined to assert U.S. dominance in international peace processes, echoing his earlier withdrawals from global institutions and efforts to reshape diplomacy in an-America First style. This approach poses fundamental challenges to the future of international governance, legitimacy, and the role of established bodies such as the United Nations. In summary, the early responses to Trump’s invitations reveal a deeply divided international community. Smaller nations and ideologically aligned states have embraced the initiative as an opportunity to enhance their diplomatic profiles and signal loyalty to U.S. leadership. Major powers and key regional actors, by contrast, remain wary, concerned about its implications for established norms, sovereignty, and the legitimacy of the peace process. The controversies surrounding funding, the limited inclusion of Palestinian decision-makers, and the perceived U.S.-centric bias will serve as critical tests of whether the Board of Peace can evolve from a bold gesture into a functional, inclusive, and credible institution. As global reactions continue to unfold, the outcome may significantly shape the future architecture of international conflict resolution. Sources: IBNA, Reuters, CNBC, CNN Trump invites France, Germany, and EU Commission President to join controversial ‘Board of Peace’ Caption: United States President Donald J Trump (R) hosts a bilateral lunch with Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban (C) in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 07 November 2025. EPA/AARON SCHWARTZ / POOL

Europe’s maze of rules and regulators is in sharp focus as Brussels grapples with X’s AI tool Grok.

Le narratif de la diplomatie russe en Afrique est battu en brèche par des témoignages accablants. La Russie demeure pourtant pour beaucoup un contrepoids à l’hégémonie occidentale.

It is described as 'a libertarian utopia with minimal corporate regulation.'

La facturation électronique, obligatoire en Belgique depuis ce mois de janvier, soulève quelques interrogations.

President Donald Trump Has Threatened War Against Allies, Undermined Courts, and Menaced the Independence of the Federal Reserve. The United States Is in Free Fall.

Face aux vents contraires, vous êtes les bienvenus pour réfléchir, agir et danser au 2e Festival des idées "Chaleur humaine", le 18 janvier 2026 au ...

Going “door to door,” murdering soccer moms, and divvying up the spoils of regime change.

It's a gift to the Kremlin and a middle finger to our erstwhile allies.

YouTube video by Histoire Appliquée

The people of Ukraine want an honest government, even as American and Russian kleptocrats circle their country.

Since Trump has become President, China has ramped up its support for Russia to hammer Ukraine.