World politics has entered a phase of fundamental changes. In recent years, the decline in trust in international institutions, the intensification of competition among global powers, and the increase in regional conflicts clearly indicate the erosion of the existing world order. Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump's proposal of an alternative mechanism that could replace the United Nations is not considered accidental.
Donald Trump's idea of an “International Peace Council” proposed for the Gaza Strip is, in fact, an open challenge to the international governance system. According to the US president, this new p could replace the UN and operate more effectively. Trump has openly stated that the UN has failed to fulfill its mission and has been unsuccessful in resolving global conflicts.
In fact, Trump's claims regarding the UN are very real. Because this organization has been a dead letter for years. It operates with double standards.
Trump's statements have once again brought to the forefront the issue of the UN's legitimacy, which is considered one of the main pillars of international law and the global security system. According to experts, these statements are not only populist rhetoric but also indicators of real political intentions. The US has been criticizing the UN for many years as a bureaucratic, inefficient, and politically dependent organization.
The UN was established in 1945 after the Second World War. The main objective of the organization was to maintain international peace and security, prevent conflicts, and strengthen cooperation among states. Currently, the UN has 193 member states, and almost all countries in the world are represented in this p. The UN's annual budget, including various funds and programs, is measured in tens of billions of dollars.
However, over many years, the weakness of the implementation mechanisms for resolutions adopted by the UN has raised serious questions. In particular, the veto mechanism of the Security Council has effectively turned the organization into a political tool for major powers. One of the most striking examples of this is the Azerbaijan issue. Although the UN Security Council once adopted four resolutions regarding Azerbaijan's occupied territories, these documents remained on paper for years.
As a result, Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity on its own strength, based on international law and the provisions of UN resolutions. This fact clearly demonstrated how limited the UN's real influence is. Many experts believe that the UN has now become an incapacitated, symbolic organization whose decisions are not implemented.
It is in this context that Trump's “Peace Council” initiative draws attention. According to the US president's statement, 60 countries will be among the founding members of the new p. A donation of at least 1 billion dollars is required from these countries for permanent membership. This approach differs from the classic international organization model and more closely resembles a financially-based power mechanism.
The main priority of the Peace Council will be the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. The establishment of an executive committee and an executive board is also planned for this purpose. Through these structures, the US aims to control both financial flows and political decisions. This is effectively seen as an attempt by Washington to restore its claim to global leadership in a new format.
But can Trump's power be enough to completely sideline the UN? From a legal standpoint, the US president does not have the authority to dissolve the UN. However, considering the US's financial, political, and military influence, there is potential to effectively weaken the UN and create alternative platforms.
In this process, the factors of Russia and China are of particular importance. Moscow views the UN Security Council as a primary bulwark against Western pressures and is not interested in the weakening of this p. China, on the other hand, considers the UN a key element of a multipolar world model and actively uses this platform to limit the dominant role of the US.
European Union countries, however, are in a more complex position. On one hand, they acknowledge the UN's need for reforms, while on the other hand, they approach Trump's unilateral initiatives with caution. For Middle Eastern countries, the “Peace Council” could promise new opportunities in terms of finance and security.
Experts believe that the Peace Council cannot fully replace the UN, but it could overshadow it. Particularly, more flexible and rapid decision-making mechanisms in regional conflicts could give this p certain advantages. Nevertheless, from the perspective of international legal legitimacy and universal representation, it seems difficult to fill the UN's place.
Consequently, Trump's initiative once again demonstrates the existence of serious cracks in the global system. The world is no longer governed by old rules. New power centers, alternative institutions, and different political alliances are forming. The fate of the UN will remain one of the main topics of discussion in this changing world order.
One question, however, remains open. Is the world heading towards a more effective or a more chaotic international system? The coming years will provide the answer to this question.
Elnur ƏMİROV
