Hungary and Albania are the only countries in Europe so far to have responded enthusiastically to US President Donald Trump's invitation to join his Peace Council, while major powers and key regional actors are largely restrained and without a clear position, EUalive writes today.
The Brussels portal states that a significant diplomatic breakthrough occurred earlier this year when the US invited around sixty countries and regional actors to join a newly formed international body called the Board of Peace, of which Trump would be the chairman for life.
Launched in the fragile period following the Gaza ceasefire, which the United Nations (UN) Security Council endorsed in November 2025, the initiative represents an ambitious and unconventional attempt by the US president to reshape multilateral conflict resolution, with the potential to replace the UN.
The reactions of those invited reveal a complex mix of geopolitical positioning, ideological affinities, and strategic calculations, ranging from open enthusiasm to expressed caution, EUalajv assesses.
In Europe, Albania and Hungary were among the first and most enthusiastic to accept the invitation.
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. Rama’s enthusiastic response went beyond diplomatic protocol and served as an expression of national pride and strategic alignment with Washington. His pledge to do “whatever it takes” to enhance Albania’s reputation and dignity reflects a broader pattern: smaller states seeking a recognizable role in the emerging global order.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a long-time supporter of Trump's policies in Europe, has also expressed his unequivocal support for Trump's initiative. His acceptance was confirmed via social media and by statements from Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, who presented the Peace Committee as a recognition of Hungary's efforts to promote stability in unstable regions.
Orban's alignment fits with his established foreign policy, which emphasizes national sovereignty, conservative values, and skepticism toward multilateral institutions that are perceived as too bureaucratic or aligned with Western liberalism.
Support has also been signaled by some countries outside Europe, often driven by pragmatic interests or a desire to demonstrate diplomatic independence.
Argentine President Javier Millay, known for his harsh criticism of the traditional establishment, quickly accepted the invitation and described his participation as an honor. He described the committee as a platform to fight terrorism and promote peace and freedom – rhetoric in keeping with his populist emphasis on sovereignty and distrust of conventional international organizations.
Vietnamese leader To Lam confirmed acceptance, suggesting that some non-Western powers see value in joining the US-led initiative to strengthen their own regional and global influence.
In contrast, the reactions of the major traditional powers and key regional actors were restrained or without a clear position. Calls made to the leaders of France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, India (where Prime Minister Narendra Modi's cabinet remained silent), as well as other countries, did not arouse visible enthusiasm.
The EU and its leading members, particularly France and Germany, have taken a reserved stance, reflecting deep skepticism about the US-centric structure that seems to be changing the post-war international order. This reticence points to a growing transatlantic divide, with European countries concerned that they could be marginalized or associated with a process that some perceive as colonial in tone.
European diplomats have privately expressed concerns that the design and goals of the Committee could undermine the role of the United Nations and erode the multilateral consensus that has long guided international peacekeeping efforts. Many fear that the initiative, especially given Trump’s lifetime presidency, could function more as a vehicle for unilateral American influence than as a truly collaborative endeavor.
Agencies reported that China announced today that the US had invited it to join the Peace Committee, but did not announce whether it would accept the invitation, while the Kremlin announced yesterday that Russian President Vladimir Putin "received the offer through diplomatic channels" and that Russia intends to contact the US side to clarify all the details of the proposal.
There are also reservations in the Middle East. Egypt and Jordan, key mediators in the Gaza conflict, have said they are reviewing the invitation documents through internal legal procedures before making a decision.
Turkey's participation, particularly with Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, in the Gaza Executive Committee, has drawn sharp objections from Israel, which claims there was a lack of adequate prior coordination and warns that Ankara's ties to Hamas could undermine the committee's legitimacy.
Pakistan confirmed it had received the invitation, but stressed its continued commitment to existing UN-led efforts, with no indication that it would accept it.
Eulaiev also points out that the Peace Committee is one of the most unconventional diplomatic projects in recent memory. Originally launched as a key element of the US plan for a ceasefire in Gaza (approved 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.
However, its scope has rapidly expanded, indicating an ambition to become a long-term alternative framework for managing global conflicts.
At the center of the initiative is President Trump, who assumes the presidency for life. The core body is made up of invited national leaders, with operational structures such as the Gaza Executive Committee, a mix of government officials, diplomats, and influential figures with strong pro-Israel views, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and billionaire investor Mark Rowan.
On the ground, Bulgarian diplomat Nikolay Mladenov serves as High Representative, while the Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), headed by technocrat Ali Shat, runs the day-to-day administration.
The most controversial aspect of the initiative is its funding model. The draft charter reportedly calls for a $1 billion contribution in the first year for members seeking permanent status after an initial three-year period. The White House rejects claims that this is a mandatory membership fee, insisting that the contributions are voluntary and intended solely for the reconstruction of Gaza.
Critics, however, call this "pay-to-participate" diplomacy, an unprecedented precedent in the norms of international peacekeeping bodies, and warn of serious issues of legitimacy, fairness, and possible commercialization of peace efforts.
Throughout, Trump has appeared determined to solidify U.S. dominance in international peace processes, echoing earlier withdrawals from global institutions and attempts to reshape diplomacy in the spirit of “America First.” This approach poses fundamental challenges to the future of international governance, the legitimacy, and the role of established bodies like the United Nations.
In short, the initial responses to Trump's call reveal a deeply divided international community. Smaller states and ideologically aligned countries have embraced the initiative as an opportunity to enhance their diplomatic profile and signal loyalty to American leadership, while major powers and key regional actors remain cautious, concerned about the consequences for established norms, sovereignty, and the legitimacy of the peace process, the portal indicates.
Controversies over funding, limited involvement of Palestinian decision-makers, and perceived US bias will be key tests of whether the Peace Committee can evolve from a bold gesture into a functional, inclusive, and credible institution. As global reactions continue to unfold, the outcome could significantly shape the future architecture of international conflict resolution, concludes the EUalajva article.
Bonus video:
