Trump's "Peace Council" Sets Meeting Date in Washington

The New York Times reported on Sunday that a US official said the new "Peace Council" established by President Donald Trump, reportedly aimed at resolving global conflicts, is preparing to hold a meeting in Washington in the coming weeks. According to a US official and an official within the council, the meeting is scheduled for February 19, according to an invitation letter seen by the newspaper, with officials confirming these details on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of diplomatic discussions. Although the council was presented as a "practical" platform to accelerate peace and reconstruction efforts (in Gaza), it has, since its announcement, caused a clear division among US allies, especially in Europe. France and several European countries have refused to join at this stage, reflecting concerns that the council might be an attempt to re-engineer the post-World War II international order, or to create a rival entity to the United Nations that grants Washington broader influence outside traditional balance mechanisms. The intriguing aspect of the "Peace Council" is not just its timing, but its political philosophy. The council emerges at a moment when confidence in the UN's ability to produce viable solutions is declining, and amidst a clear American desire to bypass institutional complexities. However, transforming "peace" into a platform led by a single state, with its president having veto power over some decisions, raises the question of legitimacy: Is the goal truly to build peace or to redistribute international power? Here, "flexibility" becomes a title for potential hegemony rather than bureaucratic reform. The original idea for establishing the council was linked to the reconstruction of war-torn Gaza, as part of a 20-point plan announced by Trump last September to end the war between Israel and Hamas. Information indicates that this plan helped pave the way for the ceasefire agreement negotiated in the fall with the participation of Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States. However, the council's scope later expanded, no longer limited to Gaza, but now speaking of "securing lasting peace in conflict-affected or threatened areas," as stated in the founding charter signed last month. This expansion does not seem like a minor detail, but rather an indication that the council may transform into a multi-functional political and diplomatic tool, dealing with conflicts according to different standards than the UN system. The charter includes a call for "a more flexible and effective international body for peacebuilding," a phrasing widely read as an implicit criticism of the United Nations, and a hint that the Trump administration seeks to create an alternative channel that can be more easily controlled. According to officials who spoke to the newspaper, in addition to another official within the Peace Council, one of the main goals of the Washington meeting is to raise funds for reconstruction. This reflects a clear trend to transform the council into a funding platform as well, not just a political framework. But this financial dimension, in turn, raises additional problems, as the charter stipulates that countries wishing to become permanent members are required to contribute one billion dollars. The condition of contributing one billion dollars reveals that the council was designed to be a selective club, not a comprehensive international framework. It limits participation and links influence to financial capacity, a model closer to major funding funds than to peacekeeping organizations. In the Gaza file specifically, this could create a political problem: whoever pays will demand to set priorities and perhaps shape the reality on the ground. Then, reconstruction becomes not just a humanitarian operation, but a tool to redraw the region's balances, and determine who holds the decision-making power in its future. The council held its first meeting in Davos, Switzerland, last month, where member states signed its founding charter. Reports indicate that more than 20 countries have joined so far, including Argentina, Hungary, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. This composition reflects a network of intersecting political and economic alliances, bringing together countries seeking regional influence, others looking for a larger position in the international system, and Gulf states that see reconstruction as an entry point for stability and expanding partnerships. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a member of the council, is the first head of government to publicly confirm his attendance. He said at an election event on Saturday: "In two weeks, we will meet again in Washington... because the Peace Council will hold its inaugural meeting." This indication gives the meeting a political character that goes beyond the technical aspect, especially with talk of other issues that may overlap with the meeting. France and European countries' refusal to join is not so much a moral stance as it is an institutional one. Europeans believe that any new international entity led by Trump could weaken the multilateral system from which they have benefited for decades. They also fear that the council could become a platform for normalizing world conflicts according to a narrow American vision, linking solutions to funding and political loyalties. Nevertheless, Europe may later find itself forced to deal with it if it becomes a main channel for managing hot files, such as Gaza or other crises. In the same context, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would meet Trump in Washington next Wednesday "to discuss negotiations with Iran." Although Netanyahu accepted Trump's invitation to join the council, he did not participate in signing its charter in Davos, leaving question marks about the nature of his actual role. Ultimately, it seems that the "Peace Council" is not just a technical initiative for reconstruction, but a political project that reflects the Trump administration's desire to forge new tools for international influence, amidst a turbulent global environment seeking solutions, but disagreeing on who has the right to define "peace."