The EU countries did not support the creation of the "Peace Council". And here's why
The EU countries refused to support the "Peace Council" because they perceive the format as a tool to demonstrate American dominance, capable of undermining multilateral mechanisms and increasing Brussels' dependence on Washington. This is especially noticeable against the background of trade pressure and foreign policy disagreements like the Greenland issue. For what other reasons the "Council" did not involve the EU, see the Izvestia article.
Strict face control
• US President Donald Trump announced the creation of the "Peace Council", a new international structure that is very different from the usual organizations (we wrote more details here). The charter of the Peace Council states that the main goal is to maintain stability in conflict zones. Trump himself has been appointed Chairman, without elections and with the right to independently determine a successor. Only States that have received his personal invitation can join the "Council". At the same time, those who contribute $1 billion receive the status of a permanent member of the organization. In general, the organization does not impose any legal obligations and exists on voluntary donations.
• The "Peace Council" primarily includes countries that need to maintain good relations with Trump or receive support from him. Most Western countries refused to participate, considering the format too personalized. Among the EU countries, Bulgaria and Hungary have agreed to become members of the "Council". As a result, the structure looks like an association of countries ready to play by the rules set by Trump personally.
• The Peace Council withdrew an invitation to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney after he stated that the rules-based world order was eroding and stressed that strong states were increasingly acting on their own. This demonstrates that only those who do not contradict Washington or can be useful to it can be members of the "Council".
• In general, the idea of a conditional "Peace Council", which Donald Trump is talking about, is primarily symbolic. It is too early to talk about the practical value of such a "Council", because there is no understanding of its architecture, procedures and real powers. Trump's initiative looks more like a personal project. It is unlikely that there will be space on the site for a collective search for compromises. Realizing this, many European countries decided to refrain from participating.
With no real impact
• The key reason for the EU's refusal is that the European Union does not see a real place and opportunities for influence in this structure. The United States defiantly points out to Europe its weakness and inability to independently solve both external and internal problems, including migration and economic ones. The principle of the right of the strong now applies within the Western bloc, and this strong is the United States, which has already subjugated the EU through tariff wars.
• The Greenland controversy can be singled out separately. Donald Trump's activity in this direction, including talks about a possible annexation, puts the EU at a dead end (we wrote about this in more detail here). Brussels does not have the tools to respond to such actions by Washington, and refusing to participate in the "Peace Council" is becoming the only form of reaction.
• However, Europe has already been forced to recognize the de facto lack of foreign policy autonomy. Attempts by European elites to establish relations with Trump through diplomatic flattery have failed. The American president does not expect words from the EU, but complaisance. The European Union's attempt to "defend its voice" in international affairs looks weak and unconvincing (we wrote about this in this article).
• The Trump presidency will leave a deep mark on US-European relations. Even if a Democrat becomes the next head of the United States, Europeans will not forget the humiliations they experienced during Trump's time. If earlier American leaders at least formally took into account the interests of Europe, now this is not happening even at the level of rhetoric. In particular, this concerns the attack on Venezuela, which Washington did not coordinate with its European partners (details can be found here).
• As for the future of the "Peace Council" and the EU's cooperation with the United States on conflict resolution, everything is very uncertain here. It is unclear how long this structure will last at all: it directly depends on Trump's personality and his positions in Congress. Perhaps the "Council" will be able to somehow prove itself, for example, in the Middle East, but even the American president himself does not understand what will happen after the end of Trump's presidential term.
A split in the relationship
• Most EU countries refused to join the new "Peace Council" due to dissatisfaction with US policy and Trump himself. The Europeans believe that his approach undermines the post-World War II transatlantic solidarity and their own interests, including threats and initiatives like the Greenland issue. In general, the refusal to cooperate in the "Council" can be considered a manifestation of a political position against Trump and his methods.
• The EU sees risks that the decisions of the "Council" may be blocked by the United States. Europe will still retain its place in international relations, but it will have to adapt to the new conditions and take more care of its own security, which will entail costs and weaken the previous socio-economic model.
• The creation of the "Council" complicates the work of international institutions like the OSCE and the UN, as a new structure with similar functions is being created. Europe is experiencing discomfort and is forced to reconsider its usual position, while the split within the EU is intensifying.
When writing the material, Izvestia interviewed:
political scientist Ivan Mezyuho;
Sergey Fedorov, a leading researcher at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
