A significant diplomatic rift has emerged between the European Union and the United States regarding the future of Gaza, coinciding with an upcoming meeting of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” in Washington. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s chief diplomat, has raised concerns that the board operates as a personal initiative of Trump, lacking necessary accountability to both the Palestinian people and the United Nations.
EU Voices Concerns
During her remarks at the Munich Security Conference, Kallas highlighted the perceived deficiencies in the board’s mandate, pointing out that it has deviated from the original UN resolution aimed at supporting Gaza. The EU, a key financial backer of the Palestinian Authority, has expressed outrage over its exclusion from discussions pertaining to Gazan governance. Kallas noted, “The UN security council resolution provided for a Board of Peace for Gaza, but it also provided for it to be limited in time until 2027, it provided for the Palestinians to have a say, and it referred to Gaza, whereas the statute of the Board of Peace makes no reference to any of these things.”
Spain’s Foreign Minister, José Manuel Albares, echoed these sentiments, accusing Trump’s administration of attempting to circumvent established UN frameworks, raising alarms about the implications for Palestinian representation.
Concerns About Accountability
The criticisms extend beyond the EU, with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy voicing apprehensions regarding the potential misallocation of substantial reconstruction funds. He warned that, without checks and balances, there exists a risk that financial resources could benefit Trump’s associates rather than the intended recipients.
As the Board of Peace prepares for its meeting, the underlying tensions regarding the ongoing ceasefire in Gaza have never been more pronounced. Nickolay Mladenov, appointed by Trump as the high representative for Gaza, attempted to redirect attention to immediate humanitarian needs rather than the political controversy surrounding the board. He emphasised the urgency of addressing the humanitarian crisis, stating, “If we do not address the issue of Hamas and Gaza itself divided into two parts, please tell me how we get to a two-state solution, because I do not see the pathway.”
Mladenov urged that the reconstruction of Gaza is contingent upon establishing a unified governance structure, decommissioning weapons, and securing an Israeli withdrawal. He warned that failure to act promptly could lead to a resurgence of conflict rather than peace.
US Response to EU Criticism
In a robust defence of the Board of Peace, Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the UN, dismissed the EU’s concerns as “hand-wringing.” He asserted that the status quo of ongoing conflict, with Hamas’s control over Gaza, must be disrupted. Waltz confirmed Indonesia’s commitment of 8,000 troops to an International Stabilisation Force, indicating that further troop contributions would be announced shortly.
Describing Trump’s approach as “focused multilateralism,” he suggested that the UN needed to be restructured and refocused on core peacemaking efforts, implying a need for a streamlined approach to international diplomacy.
Palestinian activist Mustafa Barghouti reacted to these developments with trepidation, expressing fears that discussions surrounding Gaza are increasingly detached from reality. He lamented the ongoing expansion of settlements in the West Bank, suggesting that Israel is undermining the prospects for a two-state solution and calling for immediate accountability.
Why it Matters
The escalating confrontation between the EU and the US over Gaza governance underscores the complexities of international diplomacy in conflict resolution. As the Board of Peace convenes next week, the implications of its proceedings extend far beyond immediate humanitarian concerns, potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. The dialogue surrounding Gaza is pivotal not only for its residents but also for the broader quest for lasting peace in a region long plagued by turmoil. The outcomes of these discussions will be scrutinised globally, as they may determine the future trajectory of both Israeli and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and security.
