US President Donald Trump’s proposal for a new Board of Peace has faced significant challenges, drawing skepticism from European leaders, criticism from Israel, and unexpected support from Kremlin allies. French President Emmanuel Macron notably declined the invitation to participate, a move that highlights the hesitancy among several liberal democracies in engaging with Trump’s initiative, especially considering the controversial nature of some invitees like Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko.
The tensions escalated when Trump expressed his discontent over France’s refusal, suggesting he would impose a staggering 200% tariff on French champagne, stating, “Well, nobody wants him because he’s going to be out of office very soon.” This threat came in the context of Trump pushing to solidify the board’s framework and demands.
Countries including the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada are also reportedly opting out of the ceremony alongside France, complicating the initiative further. A key point of contention lies in Trump’s request for a $1 billion fee for permanent membership on the board, a condition that has taken global leaders by surprise. Many feel blindsided by this demand, which the White House has confirmed.
The charter of the peace board, which aims to oversee the redevelopment of post-war Gaza, has also raised alarms due to its wording, which seemingly grants Trump decisive authority in decision-making processes. This aspect has fueled uncertainty regarding the use of membership funds, leading to possible ramifications for international relations.
In response, European allies are currently working to alter the terms of the proposed board and are coordinating efforts to encourage Arab nations to advocate for changes as well. This reflects a broader strategy among European leaders to engage with Trump’s administration while navigating the complexities of current geopolitical tensions, particularly amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and Trump’s controversial claims regarding Greenland.
As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how these diplomatic efforts will influence the evolution of the Board of Peace and its role in international relations moving forward.