Home Global Affairs Diplomacy and Foreign Policy Why France Sees Trump’s Peace Plan as a Threat to EU Foreign...

Why France Sees Trump’s Peace Plan as a Threat to EU Foreign Policy

Why Europe Stands Firm: Prioritizing Venezuelan People's Will Over Oil Reserves, Photo Alexandra-Lebon-Présidence-de-la-République
Why Europe Stands Firm: Prioritizing Venezuelan People's Will Over Oil Reserves, Photo Alexandra-Lebon-Présidence-de-la-République

The European Union is facing a rare but serious internal rupture after European Commissioner Dubravka Šuica attended the first formal meeting of US President Donald Trump’s controversial Board of Peace in Washington. What appeared, at first glance, to be a routine diplomatic engagement has instead ignited a fierce backlash—with France at the forefront—over institutional authority, treaty obligations, and the future of multilateralism.

At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: Who speaks for Europe on war and peace—and under what mandate?

What Is Trump’s Board of Peace—and Why Is It So Controversial?

Trump inaugurated the Board of Peace in January as a US-led initiative initially framed around Gaza’s post-war reconstruction. However, diplomats say its mandate has since expanded dramatically, transforming it into what many now describe as a shadow structure rivaling the United Nations.

Key concerns include:

  • Trump naming himself lifelong chairman

  • Ambitions extending “far beyond Gaza”

  • No formal grounding in international law

  • Lack of accountability under the United Nations system

For many EU capitals, the board represents a direct challenge to the UN Charter and to multilateral diplomacy itself.

Why France Took the Lead in Opposing Šuica’s Trip

A Question of Legal Mandate

France forcefully argued during a closed-door meeting of EU ambassadors that Šuica’s participation breached EU treaties. Under EU law, foreign policy is not the competence of the European Commission, but rather the exclusive domain of member states acting unanimously.

From Paris’s perspective:

  • The Commission cannot independently set or signal EU foreign policy

  • Šuica’s presence risked being interpreted as an official EU endorsement

  • No prior consultation with national capitals took place

This argument found broad support, with a large majority of ambassadors echoing France’s concerns.

Political Weight of a Commissioner vs a Civil Servant

Šuica is not a technical official—she is the Commissioner for the Mediterranean, a role that inherently carries political symbolism. France and others argued that:

  • A civil servant might have limited diplomatic fallout

  • A commissioner’s presence signals political legitimacy

  • Washington could portray her attendance as EU alignment

This distinction proved crucial in fueling the backlash.

The EU Is Not a Member of the Board of Peace

Another core objection raised by France was simple but powerful: the EU is not part of the Board of Peace.

Allowing a commissioner to attend:

  • Blurs institutional boundaries

  • Risks creating de facto participation

  • Undermines the EU’s official stance of skepticism

From Paris’s standpoint, this sets a dangerous precedent where presence equals consent.

The Commission’s Defense: Engagement Without Endorsement?

In response, a European Commission spokesperson insisted that Šuica’s trip was aimed at staying “closely engaged” in Gaza-related diplomacy and reconstruction efforts. The Commission stressed it has no intention of joining the Board of Peace.

Yet this explanation has failed to convince critics.

Why?

  • Engagement without mandate still signals legitimacy

  • Silence on governance concerns during attendance weakens EU leverage

  • Optics matter in high-stakes diplomacy

A Deeply Divided Europe Exposed

While France led the backlash, the room was far from unanimous—exposing deep fractures within the EU.

Countries Supporting or Engaging the Board:

  • Viktor Orbán (Hungary) – permanent participation

  • Bulgaria – permanent participation

  • Observer interest from Italy, Poland, Greece, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Romania

This split reflects broader East–West tensions within the EU, particularly over:

  • Relations with Washington

  • Commitment to multilateral institutions

  • Willingness to challenge US-led initiatives

Why France Sees an Existential Threat to Multilateralism

France has historically positioned itself as:

  • A defender of the UN-centered international order

  • A proponent of EU strategic autonomy

  • A skeptic of unilateral US power structures

From Paris’s perspective, Trump’s Board of Peace risks:

  • Normalizing parallel peace diplomacy

  • Weakening the authority of the United Nations Security Council

  • Replacing international law with ad hoc coalitions

Allowing EU officials to attend—even informally—accelerates this erosion.

Gaza, Aid, and the Fear of Marginalization

Despite strong objections, Brussels faces a dilemma.

The EU is:

  • The largest humanitarian donor to Palestinians

  • Contributor of €1.65 billion since October 7, 2023

  • A key funder of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure

European officials fear that boycotting the Board of Peace entirely could:

  • Sideline the EU from Gaza reconstruction

  • Reduce leverage over post-war governance

  • Allow Washington to dominate the peace narrative

This tension explains why the Commission chose engagement—while France insists the cost to EU credibility is too high.

The Nickolay Mladenov Factor: Institutional Overlap Ahead

Nickolay Mladenov**, appointed by Trump as High Representative for Gaza, is set to brief EU foreign ministers next week. His role is to link the Board of Peace with a technocratic Palestinian committee running Gaza’s daily affairs.

For critics, this raises fresh alarm:

  • Is the Board quietly embedding itself into governance structures?

  • Will EU funds end up supporting a US-designed framework?

  • Does this marginalize Palestinian political agency?

What’s at Stake for Europe?

Institutional Credibility

If commissioners act without mandate, EU foreign policy coherence collapses.

UN Charter Integrity

All 27 EU states are signatories. Endorsing parallel structures weakens the legal order they claim to defend.

EU Strategic Autonomy

France fears Europe drifting into policy dependency on Washington.

Global Signal

If the EU bends here, future conflicts—from Ukraine to Taiwan—could bypass multilateral institutions entirely.

A Trip That Triggered a Reckoning

France’s leadership in opposing Dubravka Šuica’s Board of Peace trip is not about diplomatic protocol—it is about the soul of European foreign policy.

At stake is whether the EU:

  • Upholds treaty-based multilateralism

  • Defends the UN system

  • Or quietly adapts to a world where peace is brokered by power, not law

As foreign ministers meet in Brussels next week, the debate will define Europe’s role in a rapidly fragmenting global order—and whether it chooses principled resistance or pragmatic accommodation.

RELATED ARTICLES

© THE THINK TANK JOURNAL © 2009-25. All Rights Reserved.
Exit mobile version