Analysts from 24.kg conducted research and prepared a summary on the "Trump Peace Council" and its influence on Central Asia.
New Elite or Alternative to the UN?
Many experts note that the "Trump Peace Council" is not a classical alternative to the UN, as it does not imply universal membership and is not based on international law. Furthermore, it does not have the same formal legitimacy as the UN Security Council.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that at this moment the "council" does not strive for this formal legitimacy. The future is difficult to predict, especially considering that the UN is currently experiencing a serious systemic crisis, with a paralyzed Security Council whose resolutions are often ignored, and conflicts being resolved outside the framework of this organization.
However, at this point, it is more about creating a parallel architecture based on the following principles:
- Deals instead of norms, where decisions are made through bilateral and multilateral agreements rather than based on universal rules.
- Loyalty is more important than values, where participation criteria are determined not by adherence to democratic norms but by predictability and willingness to follow the proposed rules.
- Hierarchy instead of formal equality, where the focus is on so-called anchor states rather than the principle of "one country - one vote."
Thus, the "Trump Peace Council" is not a "world government," but rather a tool for managing conflicts and interests outside traditional multilateral institutions, which Trump's team considers ineffective and ideologically biased.
Can the "Trump Peace Council" be considered an elite political club?
Some experts agree with this viewpoint, but with an important clarification. This is a club of elites not based on shared values, but on utility for the Trump administration. Thus, it may include key regional players controlling logistics, resources, or security, as well as regimes capable of maintaining stability both at home and with their neighbors.
Under Trump’s administration, the U.S. seeks to reduce costs of global leadership, not abandoning it, but trying to shift responsibility to local "sheriffs."
In this context, the "Trump Peace Council" is more aimed at creating a global pool of managed partners rather than allies in the traditional sense.
Moreover, Trumpism as a political philosophy does not share ideas of universalism, viewing the world as a marketplace where the strong negotiate directly, and the weak adapt.
What This Means for Central Asia
For the countries of Central Asia, the "Trump Peace Council" represents an interesting but risky format. On one hand, the region fits well into the logic of the "council" due to its strategic location, lack of ideological prejudices, willingness to negotiate, and high dependence on external security and investments. On the other hand, many experts believe that participation in such a format may mean a departure from a multi-vector policy and a shift to multi-vectorism as a form of bargaining.
Additionally, not all countries received an invitation to the "council."
This selective approach to Central Asia is explained by several factors. First of all, Trump and his team usually work not with states, but with specific leaders. In this regard, an invitation is a signal of personal trust and pragmatic interests, rather than recognition of the region as a whole. Different countries in the region have varying levels of foreign policy capitalization, and not all are equally interesting to the U.S. in terms of transit routes, energy resources, and security.
Unfortunately, some analysts note that since not all Central Asian states were invited to the "Trump Peace Council," this could weaken the already fragile, but recently activated regional integration.
The selective invitation to the "Trump Peace Council" creates several effects:
First, it will lead to the strengthening of individual strategies. Leaders who receive invitations gain additional resources, both political and symbolic, which pushes them towards establishing bilateral channels instead of regional coordination.
Second, there will be a sense of unequal access to global platforms and doubts about the real value of regional collective formats.
Third, motivation for a common consensus will decrease, as why negotiate with neighbors if one can negotiate directly with global players, even in an informal setting.
The format of the "Trump Peace Council" can also be seen as a challenge for the Organization of Turkic States. Although institutionally they do not compete, the "Trump Peace Council" emphasizes the trend towards personalized diplomacy, diminishing the significance of multilateral regional mechanisms and encouraging individual benefits. As a result, the OTS may remain merely a ritual platform rather than a tool of real politics.
Certainly, the selective invitation of Central Asian countries to the "Trump Peace Council" is not a geopolitical catastrophe, but it is not a neutral event either.
The region once again faces a situation where an external player works not with it, but with individual figures.
Many political analysts doubt that the countries of Central Asia themselves will be able to uphold the value of regional integration when global politics offers faster and more profitable alternatives.
Overall, experts agree that the "Trump Peace Council" for Central Asia is neither a window of opportunity nor a sentence, but represents another level of the larger political game, where the most adaptive will win, as it reflects a new world where rules are secondary, institutions are weak, and success depends on the ability to negotiate with the strong.
