On the first full day of his presidency, Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a decision that signaled a shift in American foreign policy. This move, while not unexpected, was a clear indication of Trump’s disdain for multilateral agreements. Now, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese considers an invitation to join Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza, questions arise about the true intentions behind this initiative.
The “Board of Peace” is presented as a multilateral effort to address the devastation in Gaza. However, beneath the surface, it appears to be a strategic maneuver to consolidate American influence. The board includes high-profile figures such as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, alongside Turkish and Qatari officials. Yet, the structure is criticized as a façade, masking US control under the guise of international cooperation.
A Historical Context of US Foreign Policy
Trump’s approach to international relations is rooted in a longstanding American tradition of prioritizing national interests over global cooperation. This perspective was evident in his campaign rhetoric, where he criticized multilateral deals as detrimental to American sovereignty. His administration’s actions, such as the abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and the proposed annexation of Greenland, echo past US interventions that have often disregarded international norms.
According to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the administration favors “strength” over “international niceties,” a sentiment reminiscent of the US invasion of Afghanistan. This approach has historically allowed the US to exert influence while bypassing global consensus, a tactic now being applied to the situation in Gaza.
The Implications for Global Leaders
For leaders like Albanese, the decision to engage with Trump’s “Board of Peace” involves weighing the benefits of participating in a US-led initiative against the risks of endorsing a system that undermines international law. The board’s focus on economic opportunities, such as Gaza’s real estate potential, raises concerns about neglecting Palestinian rights and justice.
Albanese’s recognition of Palestinian statehood, despite US opposition, highlights the tension between supporting a rules-based international order and acquiescing to US dominance. The choice facing global leaders is whether to uphold international law or participate in a “mafia world order” where the US dictates terms.
Global Reactions and Future Prospects
European allies like Britain, France, and Germany have been hesitant to oppose Trump, fearing the loss of US support against Russian aggression in Ukraine. Meanwhile, political and business figures worldwide, from Apple’s Tim Cook to FIFA’s Gianni Infantino, have sought to appease Trump’s unpredictable administration.
As protests in Melbourne demonstrate, there is a growing call for leaders to assert their power and challenge US hegemony. The question remains whether Albanese and his counterparts will take a stand or continue to navigate the complexities of a world increasingly shaped by American interests.
The “Board of Peace” thus serves as a litmus test for the future of international relations. Will it pave the way for genuine collaboration, or will it reinforce a unilateral approach that prioritizes power over partnership?
