Leaders of Two Central Asian Countries to Attend Signing Ceremony of Charter for Peace Council Initiated by Trump

Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, at the invitation of former US President Donald Trump, will travel to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the signing ceremony of the charter for the "Peace Council" on January 22. This news, released through official channels of both countries, has attracted attention in Central Asia and the broader geopolitical landscape.

According to Uzbek sources, President Mirziyoyev recently departed for Switzerland for a working visit. The Kazakh Presidential Press Office also confirmed President Tokayev's attendance. Both countries had previously accepted the US invitation and agreed to join this newly established Council, aimed at promoting peace in the Gaza Strip, as founding members.

01 The Concept and Controversy of the Peace Council

The Peace Council, initiated by Trump, aims to establish a new international framework, bringing together countries willing to take responsibility for promoting long-term peace, stability, and security in Gaza. This initiative aims to unite the international community to jointly resolve the long-standing conflict in the Middle East and promote lasting peace and stability in the wider region.

However, this initiative has been controversial since its inception. It has been revealed that the draft charter of the Peace Council grants Trump, as its first chairman, broad powers, including the privilege that all decisions require his approval and that he has the power to make final rulings in the event of a tie.

The draft charter also stipulates that member states that contribute more than $1 billion to the Peace Council in its first year will not be subject to the three-year term limit. This high "membership fee" threshold has been criticized as a commodification of international affairs.

Trump publicly stated that the Peace Council "might" replace the United Nations, believing that the UN "has never played a very big role." This statement has raised concerns in the international community about the US's attempt to reshape the post-World War II international order.

02 A Stark Contrast in the Reactions of Major Powers

In stark contrast to the positive attitude of Central Asian countries, major powers have reacted cautiously to the Peace Council. French President Macron explicitly stated his refusal to participate, and Trump immediately threatened to impose a 200% tariff on French wine and champagne.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Russia is "studying the details of the proposal." Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out that Trump's draft charter was lengthy but failed to address the core issues concerning the Gaza Strip.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun stated at a regular press conference that China had received an invitation from the US, but did not elaborate on whether Beijing would accept it. Simultaneously, China took a counter-measure, applying to have the UN High Seas Treaty Secretariat located in Xiamen, Fujian Province, using this move to defend the authority of the United Nations.

This contrast highlights the differences in the paths chosen by different countries in global governance. Some analysts believe that China is demonstrating its stance on international affairs by supporting multilateral mechanisms within the UN framework.

03 Geopolitical Considerations of Central Asian Countries

The decisions of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan reflect their diplomatic strategies of seeking balance in the great power game. Mirziyoyev, in his letter to Trump, called the initiative "an important step in resolving the long-standing conflict in the Middle East and strengthening regional peace and stability," indicating Uzbekistan's positive attitude towards participating in international affairs.

Analysts believe that as influential countries in Central Asia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan may seek greater influence on the international stage by participating in the Peace Council. This choice also reflects their diplomatic strategy of maintaining a balance in great power competition.

Against the backdrop of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and strained US-Russia relations, the decision of Central Asian countries, traditionally within Russia's sphere of influence, to join a US-led initiative has drawn widespread attention from geopolitical observers.

Some argue that smaller countries often have no choice but to "buy peace" in the great power game.

04 Two Visions on the Davos Stage

The Davos World Economic Forum has become a forum for the clash of two global governance philosophies. On the one hand, Trump attempted to use this platform to launch his "Peace Council" initiative; on the other hand, many world leaders held reservations, preferring to support a multilateral system centered on the United Nations.

UN Secretary-General Guterres highly praised the formal entry into force of the High Seas Treaty, hailing it as a "historic achievement" in global governance. This contrast highlights the international community's divergence in its choice of global governance path.

Analysts point out that the lukewarm reception of Trump's "Peace Council" reflects a reality: it is increasingly unrealistic for the United States to unilaterally dominate international affairs.

Even politicians skilled at creating momentum cannot change the prevailing trend of countries pursuing independent diplomacy.

With the Davos Forum underway, the signing ceremony of the Peace Council's charter is about to take place. The participation of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan reflects the strategy of Central Asian countries seeking balance and expanding diplomatic space in the great power game.

Regardless of whether this Council ultimately succeeds in its establishment, the transformation of the global governance system has already begun. Trump's efforts to reshape the post-World War II international order are facing skepticism from both traditional allies and strategic competitors. The possibility of Xiamen, Fujian becoming the location of the UN High Seas Treaty Secretariat signifies a profound restructuring of the global governance landscape.