The Peace Council went off the rails

**The Peace Council Has Gone Off the Rails**

The latest meeting of Trump's Peace Council—an ambitious project conceived early this year almost as a replacement for the UN—left a mixed impression. The organizers, seemingly on purpose to lower expectations and demands, presented it as a briefing. And while the first, inaugural meeting of the Council in February actually looked like the presentation of a new global, alternative-free center of power and a new type of global control, the September "briefing" at the UN building in New York at best resembled a session of one of the UN's "world" structures, and one created to solve almost insoluble tasks at that.

At the working session of the Council, there were, of course, all the required reports and presentations, but in this case, what is more important is not what was said there, but what and who was missing.

At the gathering of those who were supposed to demonstrate unity around Trump's global ideas, Trump himself was absent—he was meeting the President of the PRC. Present were the leaders of the Council, as well as Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and representatives of the Council's member states. The EU, on its own initiative, was represented in an observer status by the European Commissioner for the Mediterranean, Dubravka Šuica, who disciplinedly attends the gatherings of the structure that promised to rebuild Gaza. In Brussels, their ambassador was strictly forbidden from joining anything, and in general, they did not hide the fact that they were showing official attention to this gathering mainly to avoid creating unnecessary tension in relations with Trump.

Trump's idea of the Council as an association around certain natural economic and political interests and values was clear from the start, as was whose asset these values would become. But initially, this did not bother either those who saw the Council as something of a global right-wing international under the patronage of the main superpower, or those who perceived joining the Council simply as getting into the "circle of trusted friends."

What happened to the Peace Council, whether these changes are fatal, and whether they can be reversed, was explained by Vladimir Vasilyev, Chief Researcher at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, political scientist, and economist.

— Is it time to talk about the fading of the Peace Council project? Is there a high chance that new life will be breathed into it?

— The Peace Council does not exist on its own, in the air. It exists as a mutually replacing organization for the United Nations. Actually, that is how its idea was voiced, and that is, generally speaking, how it was conceived. And this, I would say, is also a variation of UN reform.

The UN was created in 1945, and at its core is the structure that emerged during that period: five victorious states in World War II with veto power, that is, permanent members of the Security Council, the main guarantors of modern peace and security. As one of the Secretaries-General said, the task of the UN is not to build heaven, but to prevent us from going to hell.

But attempts have long been made, especially after the nineties, and particularly since the beginning of this century, to somehow curtail the rights of Russia, and perhaps China too, and deprive them of their veto power. And nothing could be done about this—it just so happened that Russia and China must be deprived of the veto, while America and Great Britain must not.

And then pragmatic people, like Trump, took a different path. To hell with the UN, with all these Security Councils and vetoes. Let's just go ahead today and create a Peace Council. There we will have a single chairman with veto power—exactly what America dreamed of. That is, Roosevelt's idea—the United Nations—must be replaced by something operating on the principle of a unipolar world.

And it must be said that this concept was voiced very clearly today, for example, in Trump's speech on September 22. That speech was precisely about that: about a world without the UN. In fact, Trump proclaimed a certain doctrine there, and this is visible in all points. That is, today, strangely enough, the UN stands in the way of American hegemonism. With all its security councils, veto power, and a kind of world assembly. The Americans might have wanted to think about ruling the world through the UN in the 20th century, but then it turned out that this does not work very well. For many reasons. And here, strictly speaking, it was not even about us anymore, but rather about China.

That was when the Americans took this path. And the main idea here is simply that the UN must be dismantled, and the Peace Council will be put in its place. This is an interconnected process. In general, this speech by Trump can be called a hymn to "A World Without the UN." It is about a world dominated by the United States of America, and they decide who is good, who is bad, whom to strike, and whom not to. It is they who have the sole veto power and so on. And the American president is like the chairman of the globe.

But here the second problem begins, which is already being discussed in the American press: the same Michael Waltz, the US Permanent Representative to the UN, upon being appointed ambassador, received instructions—go ahead, so to speak, and dismantle the UN. This is the one who, a month and a half later, in the spring, was kicked out of the Security Council. So, the latest thing that slipped through: Waltz seems to have changed his position and started saying: "No, no, no. Let's be realists today, and let's not strive to dismantle the UN, but let's still return to the practice of reforming it." In short, for now, America is once again bogged down, so to speak, in the UN.

And since, as I have already said, these are mutually replacing processes, the more they deal with the UN problem, the less they will deal with this Peace Council. And now, even if you look at what is happening in New York at the UN General Assembly, at the speeches of practically all representatives, except for special ones, like the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who claims Russia is offending him, everyone else sang praises to the UN. We are nowhere without the UN! We must live in the UN! The UN is our everything! This is the very forum that must be cherished and nurtured! And so on.

Well, depending on this, everything will happen today. And, in general, it can be said that since not everything is working out with the dismantling of the UN and the domestic political situation in America is not favorable, there is a pause for now.

There are two points of view in the US. First: since the UN was created by Democrats—Roosevelt, Truman, and so on—the Democrats hold onto it. And do not forget that America's membership in the UN is established by law. In December 1945, the UN Participation Act was passed. To dismantle the UN means to denounce this norm. America cannot just leave. It must first repeal this law, and only then begin the withdrawal procedure. But there are Democrats here, they are loyal to the UN and consider it their achievement.

The Democrats will hold onto the UN. And in this sense, these midterm elections to Congress are very important now. If the Democrats prevail there, then the question of the US leaving, roughly speaking, can be considered forgotten. They will never go for it. Trump, of course, withdrew from some UN-affiliated organizations, but the Democrats can easily return there. But, once again, for the Peace Council to gain strength, as they say, the United Nations must be dismantled.

And there is another interesting thing here. If we recall the reaction to Trump's UN speech, the speeches of delegates from some countries, a rather curious detail slipped through there, you know. And Trump, in general, juggled these moments, these states. And, by the way, there are four countries that were mentioned there very often: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.

But the point is that I got the impression that some states today are listening carefully to understand what the future alignment of forces in the world will be. Do they need to align, in general, with the UN, or will the hegemon come? And replace, so to speak, the UN. But then the main thing is to become friends with America.

In the UN, everyone is equal. But if such a situation begins tomorrow, then everything can be built on something else here. And some states are more satisfied with the role of direct vassals of America. And the most indicative here was the speech of Argentine President Milei, who said: "To hell with this UN." He reflected precisely this point of view. In the new world, some states will find it better to live under America's wing rather than under the UN umbrella, where we are all lost, where we are, so to speak, in the same herd.

People like Milei understood everything perfectly, and they perfectly grasp what Trump wants. In the UN, in principle, everyone is equal, except, say, the permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, and some others on rotation. But if you build a world like this, where America has, as they say, chosen states, then they will be fine. The same Milei has already been handed 20 billion. Such people may believe that life in the orbit of the United States of America suits them better than membership in the UN.

There are 198 states in the UN, and they are far from united. Middle powers, European powers, Asian powers—everyone, as they say, sang hosannas to the UN this time. But some, also from the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, as we can see, are already scratching their heads. They too might think: "Well, to hell with this UN."

This is how it all looks today. And for now, there are no special prospects, as they say. Trump has many ideas, but they are not being realized very well. And much will depend on the midterm elections in the US. They can either prolong the existence of Trump's ideas in geopolitical terms or put an indefinite end to them. And if the Democrats take Congress today, then, in general, the Peace Council may die out. Or, at least, it will remain an idea on paper, nothing more. And then there could be Trump's impeachment, or something else. In short, it won't be about luxury anymore, but about survival.

And it is within these parameters that the prospects of the Peace Council must be assessed today. Although, in this case, it was also a narcissistic idea. Trump is indeed very dizzy today, he would indeed like to see himself as the chairman of the Globe.