On 16 January 2026, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, US President Donald Trump officially announced the creation of a new international structure, the so-called ‘World Peace Council,’ which, according to him, should become a key instrument for conflict resolution and the restoration of affected territories. This initiative became one of the most discussed topics in foreign policy discourse at the beginning of the year, eliciting a wide range of reactions on the international stage.
Initially, the initiative was part of Trump’s peace plan for the Gaza Strip, a document developed in 2025 and approved by the UN Security Council at the end of November of that year as a set of measures to end hostilities and restore the region humanitarily. However, unlike most similar plans, Trump went further. Instead of the traditional role of mediator, he proposed the creation of an international body that would not only oversee the recovery but also have a broad mandate to intervene in other conflicts beyond the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.
According to official statements by the Trump administration, the Peace Council should become a coordinating platform for states willing to work together to strengthen peace, resolve conflicts and rebuild affected areas. As US Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted, this body is not intended to replace the UN, but to fill the ‘gaps’ that Washington believes exist in the international peacekeeping system.
Why did Trump initiate the creation of this structure? The official version of the White House representatives is that existing international institutions, especially the UN, have failed to effectively deal with a number of major conflicts, leading to protracted humanitarian crises and devastating consequences for the civilian population. In this context, the Peace Council should act as a tool for rapid response and coordination of efforts by like-minded states.
Opposition analysts, however, view the initiative differently. In their opinion, the project pursues the geopolitical and strategic goals of the US administration. Some experts believe that Trump is trying to secure long-term international authority and expand Washington’s influence beyond existing international organisations, as well as create a new format of global leadership under American leadership.
Formally, the Peace Council operates based on a charter signed by Trump and representatives of participating countries at a meeting in Davos, with more than 50 states invited to cooperate. The document does not specify any direct geographical restrictions, which has been interpreted as an intention to expand the Council’s role globally, rather than just around the Palestinian enclave.
According to its charter, the Peace Council’s activities cover several key areas. The first of these is the coordination of international aid and reconstruction in regions affected by war or armed conflict. This directly concerns the Gaza Strip, where the Council plans to oversee the processes of infrastructure reconstruction, governance and humanitarian aid. The second area is monitoring and supporting peace agreements, including monitoring their implementation and assisting countries that are not members of the Peace Council in implementing the agreements. The third is to expand activities to other conflict zones, including possible participation in peace settlement processes in Europe and Asia. American political circles have discussed the prospect of creating an analogue of the Peace Council for the situation in Ukraine.
Some countries have expressed their willingness to join the Peace Council or, at least, to consider such a possibility. The first signatories include states from various regions, including Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region. Belarus has officially signed the invitation to join, and Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have confirmed their willingness to participate in the work of the new body, both politically and in the restoration of affected territories. Among the countries of Asia and the Middle East, Vietnam, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have announced their support for the initiative, viewing the Peace Council as an additional platform for stabilising the situation around the Gaza Strip and neighbouring regions. Israel has also expressed interest, viewing participation in the Peace Council as an element of foreign policy stabilisation and a tool for interaction with international donors.
Countries outside the traditional US alliances, such as Argentina, Morocco and Pakistan, have also shown interest in the initiative, underscoring Washington’s desire to give the project the widest possible geographical coverage.
In addition, analysts note that countries seeking to strengthen their positions in the region and gain access to financial and infrastructural resources for reconstruction may view the Peace Council not only as a peacekeeping mechanism, but also as a platform for promoting their strategic and economic interests. According to experts, this explains the activity of countries in the Middle East and Central Asia.
While a number of Western European states have taken a wait-and-see or openly sceptical stance, fearing a redistribution of influence in the system of international institutions, the main Western allies of the United States have expressed serious doubts and refused to participate.
The Prime Minister of Greece, for example, stated that most European countries are not ready to join a structure that goes beyond the mandate of the UN Security Council and expressed doubts about its legal legitimacy. Leaders of a number of Western countries, including France and the United Kingdom, categorically refused to participate, explaining their decision by their unwillingness to legalise US dominance in the international peacekeeping architecture. Political analysts note that European countries fear that the Peace Council could become an alternative to the UN, putting pressure on existing international norms.
Some leaders and politicians in the European Union have also joined the critics. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called on Washington to review the architecture of the Peace Council and integrate its activities into existing international formats, rather than creating a parallel system. In the Scandinavian countries, particularly Norway, officials have stated outright that any new peacekeeping mechanisms must be formed exclusively with the sanction of the UN Security Council, otherwise it creates a dangerous precedent of substituting international law with political expediency.
Experts warn of the possible far-reaching consequences of the Peace Council’s activities. The main risk is that, having gained significant influence over the settlement and recovery processes, the Peace Council could undermine established international mechanisms, primarily the UN and specialised agencies created for peacekeeping tasks. This could lead to duplication of functions, increased competition between international organisations, and legal uncertainty regarding mandates and responsibilities.
In addition, critics fear that such a structure, controlled by a single country or coalition of countries, could become an instrument of geopolitical influence rather than a neutral mediator in peace processes. This is particularly sensitive given that the Peace Council was created based on a plan already approved by the Security Council, but with different powers.
Donald Trump’s initiative to establish a Peace Council was a turning point in international politics in early 2026. On the one hand, it reflects the search for new tools to resolve conflicts and rebuild affected regions, which is undoubtedly an important task for the international community. On the other hand, it calls into question the existing principles of international architecture, based on multilateral institutions and the equal participation of states.
At this stage, it is difficult to say unequivocally whether the Peace Council will become a truly effective tool for strengthening peace or whether it will turn into a new arena for global rivalry, in which the interests of the great powers will dominate those of the affected peoples. However, Trump’s initiative has already changed the discussion about the future of international peacekeeping.