France, Norway and most of the EU rejected Trump's "Peace Council": demarche in defense of the UN
21.01.2026When Paris is the first to say "no" to Trump's new "peace club," Norway, Sweden, and most EU countries are already loudly following suit.
Donald Trump planned to show the world a “new architecture of peace” — a Board of Peace, headed by him personally and designed to decide the fate of Gaza, Ukraine and other conflicts. Instead of a triumph, he received a series of public refusals: first France made it clear that it would not join the format, then Norway and Sweden loudly called the Council incompatible with the role of the UN and international law, and the Financial Times recorded: most EU countries generally refused to participate1 3 8 The demarche turned out to be more principled than just a “diplomatic insult” — the Europeans effectively declared that they were not ready to legitimize a structure that could replace the UN and turn peacekeeping into a political service of one administration in Washington.1 2 .
What is Trump's "Peace Council" and why has it aroused so much suspicion?
The "Peace Council" is Donald Trump's project to create a supranational body with a lifelong head in the person of Trump himself, which is supposed to deal with the settlement of the hottest conflicts, starting with Gaza.7 10 According to leaked charter documents published by Bloomberg and other media outlets, states were offered two levels of participation: temporary “free” membership and “honorary” permanent membership for a contribution of at least $1 billion to a special fund.7 The list of invitees includes Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, several Latin American and European countries, and, according to the FT, Russia and Ukraine in the context of a possible “expansion of the Council’s mandate” to the Ukrainian front.8 9 .
Key complaints about the format are its lack of transparency and competition with the UN. The “Peace Council” does not have a clearly defined decision-making procedure, is not accountable to the General Assembly, and is not integrated into the Security Council system, but at the same time claims the right to make political decisions on war and peace.10 European diplomats quoted by the FT and i24NEWS warn that in such a structure it is easy to create the appearance of a “global consensus” without the real participation of the majority of states – it is enough to gather a few leaders who are influenced by Washington.6 8 .
France: First major rejection at Macron's level
France was the first of the major players to make it clear that it was not going to join the “Peace Council.” As early as January 18-19, sources at the Elysee Palace told Le Monde and other media outlets that Paris “does not intend to accept” the invitation, and that the wording of the Council’s charter “goes far beyond Gaza” and “raises questions about the role and principles of the UN.”1 5 President Emmanuel Macron, according to Axios and LIGA.net, decided to reject Trump after analyzing the Council's mandate and information about Vladimir Putin's invitation to it.2 5 .
Trump's response was remarkably aggressive. Speaking before flying to Davos, he threatened to impose 200 percent tariffs on French wines and champagne unless Paris "behaves like an ally" and agrees to participate in the Council.4 6 French officials responded by saying that a sovereign decision to participate in any format cannot be subject to tariff blackmail, and the new tariffs only confirm that Washington sees the Peace Council as a political tool, not a neutral platform.1 4 .
Norway: "challenges the role of the UN and international law"
If France gave the first political signal, Norway was one of the first to formulate its refusal in the strongest possible terms, namely in the language of international law. Deputy Foreign Minister Andreas Motsfeldt Kravik, in a comment to Aftenposten, quoted by LIGA.net and European Pravda, said: "It is quite obvious that we cannot be part of a structure that challenges the role of the UN and existing international law. That would be absolutely impossible for us."2 3 He stressed that Norway "will not join the Peace Council and will not participate in activities related to its establishment."
Kristoffer Thöne, State Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office, confirmed to AFP: Oslo will not send representatives to either the Davos ceremony or further Council meetings.3 Norway, one of the largest donors to the UN and one of the most consistent mediators in peace processes, thus demonstrates that its legitimacy in matters of war and peace rests precisely on the UN system, and not on political clubs formed around a single US administration.3 10 .
Sweden: joint refusal on the same principles
In parallel with its Scandinavian neighbor, Sweden has also made it clear that it does not see itself in the Peace Council. Scandinavian and Middle Eastern media outlets quote the government's position: Stockholm "will not participate in the Peace Council in its current format," and any initiatives regarding Gaza must be consistent with the UN's role and not contradict its mandate.8 For a country that has recently completed a long path to NATO membership, this is also a signal to allies: security and political formats for Sweden should remain tied to international law, not to the personal projects of individual leaders.
Some comments by Swedish government officials and parliamentarians explicitly mention fears that participation in the Peace Council, where a role is envisaged for Putin, would be seen as a recognition of him as “part of the solution” while he remains the main aggressor in Europe.8 9 In this sense, the line of Norway and Sweden coincides with the French: all three say not only "no" to Trump himself, but also "no" to attempts to legitimize Russia's participation in determining the fate of the victims of its aggression.
The EU majority says "no", even if not always out loud
According to the Financial Times, cited by NV and other publications, "most EU countries" are not going to join Trump's Peace Council8 . Some — like France, Norway, and Sweden — are articulating this publicly; others prefer a “silent refusal,” not sending official delegations or confirming participation in the Davos ceremony.6 8 Diplomats explain: few people want to openly quarrel with the White House, but even fewer want to be a co-founder of a structure that many experts are already calling a "surrogate UN."
The NV article, citing the FT, highlights another reason for skepticism: Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko are among those invited to the Council, which means that the body with the name "peaceful" starts with the legitimization of authoritarian leaders responsible for aggression and repression.8 For countries that base their foreign policy on supporting Ukraine and imposing sanctions on the Kremlin, such a company is toxic not only morally, but also politically.
Why this is not just a front against Trump, but also a fight for the UN
The refusal of France, Norway, Sweden and most of the EU is read by many not as a gesture against a specific US president, but as an attempt to defend the very idea of universal rules. Analytical reports on the challenges for the UN in 2025-2026 warn: if key states increasingly take questions of war and peace to “alternative” clubs, the UN Charter risks turning into a beautiful but empty declaration10 Trump's "Peace Council" is just such a club, created to bypass the blocked Security Council.
In this sense, France is particularly illustrative. As a permanent member of the Security Council, Paris could try to “sit on two chairs,” using both the UN and the Peace Council. But Macron is demonstratively choosing the first option, even though it means a new round of trade war with threats of 200 percent tariffs on wine.1 4 Norway adds an ideological dimension to this: “challenging the role of the UN” is unacceptable to it not only as a US ally, but also as one of the world’s leading advocates of multilateralism.2 3 .
The Ukrainian dimension: why Kyiv cannot ignore this history
For Ukraine, the "Peace Council" is not an abstract construct. The Financial Times and several other publications have already written that Trump's entourage is discussing the possibility of creating a "Peace Council for Ukraine" similar to the Gazeta Council, where representatives of the US, the EU, Russia and a number of third countries would be at the same table.8 9 In such a configuration, it is easy to imagine pressure on Kyiv with the demand for a "compromise" regarding territories, sanctions, or the format of security guarantees.
The demarche of France, Norway, and part of the EU gives Kyiv an important argument: even if close US allies consider the "Peace Council" incompatible with the UN, Ukraine has every reason to insist that any agreements on ending the war should be adopted in formats that do not diminish the role of international law.3 10 This includes the UN General Assembly, international courts, the Crimean platform, the G7 and EU formats — but certainly not a club where a lifelong “peace leader” single-handedly determines the composition of the participants.
What will happen to the "Peace Council" next?
Despite a wave of rejections, Trump is unlikely to abandon the "Peace Council" immediately: for his administration, it is a symbol of the ability to "bypass a paralyzed UN" and a demonstration of personal influence on world politics.7 9 In Davos, he will likely try to show that he has enough allies — including Israel and some Middle Eastern and African states — to speak for the “international community,” even without the participation of the majority of the EU.
However, as more large and medium-sized powers publicly refuse, the Council’s claim to “globality” weakens. If other key UN donors join the ranks of France, Norway, and Sweden, the “Peace Council” risks becoming one of the many temporary “contact groups” that international politics has seen for decades.8 10 At best, this will force Washington—current or future—to return to talking about reforming, not replacing, the UN; at worst, the world will gain yet another layer of chaos, with more and more platforms and fewer and fewer rules.
Sources
- Le Monde / RFI: "France's refusal to join Trump's 'Board of Peace' sparks new wine tariff threat" — the position of the Elysee Palace and the connection of the refusal with wine tariffs.
- LIGA.net: "Norway refuses to join Trump's Peace Council" — quotes from Andreas Motsfeldt Kravik about the incompatibility of the Peace Council with the role of the UN and international law.
- European Pravda: "Norway refuses to join Trump's 'Board of Peace'" — confirmation of Oslo's refusal and the logic of referring to the UN Charter.
- Reuters / France24 / DW: materials about Trump's threat to impose 200% tariffs on French wines and champagne in response to Macron's refusal to join the Peace Council.
- Anadolu Agency / RFI / Euronews: Report that France "does not intend to accept" invitation to the Board of Peace and doubts about the mandate of the Council.
- CNBC / NYT / DW: analysis on tariff blackmail against France, the impact on transatlantic relations and the perception of the Peace Council in the EU.
- Bloomberg: excerpts from the charter of the Board of Peace, membership requirements ($1 billion contribution), description of Trump's lifelong role, and list of invitees.
- Financial Times (via NV, i24NEWS, etc.): assessment that most EU countries refused to join the Peace Council, mention of Putin and Lukashenko's invitation.
- NV English / Axios: materials about Trump's intentions to extend the Peace Council model to Ukraine and the reaction of European capitals to Russia's presence in the format.
- ReliefWeb / analytical reviews on the challenges for the UN 2025-2026: the context of weakening multilateralism, attempts to create parallel formats and risks for international law.
