Does the Board of Peace has wings?

 

Geopolitical Notes: The International Order and Contemporary Charades

---

The Board of Peace: What is its Future?

By Victor Ângelo

Yesterday, the inaugural meeting of the Peace Council took place in Washington—a surreal initiative championed by Donald Trump. At the time of writing, the details of the ceremony have not yet been made public. I know only that no country from sub-Saharan Africa was invited, and that the G7 nations, alongside India, Brazil, the majority of Latin America, and other pre-eminent global actors, were summarily ignored. Peace, in Mr Trump’s conception, is forged by seating at the same table—as members with full rights—Viktor Orbán (the EU leader who enjoys special consideration from the current American administration, as Marco Rubio explicitly stated this week), Alexander Lukashenko, the illegitimate president of Belarus, and Javier Milei, the eccentric head of the Argentine state.

Given the peculiar nature of this project, I was prepared to suggest that Don Quixote de La Mancha—an illustrious knight with an egregious record of tilting at windmills—should likewise join the new organisation’s Executive Committee. He would bring a certain equilibrium to a group that includes, among others, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner; Steve Witkoff, a great admirer of Vladimir Putin; and Tony Blair, a politician who never misses an opportunity to earn a few pence by advising leaders whose reputations require a marketing fillip in the eyes of international public opinion. But, Don Quixote would not be invited, perhaps for want of sponsorship from the Heritage Foundation—authors of Project 2025, which largely underpins the current White House policy. Nor, it seems, did he secure the patronage of Benjamin Netanyahu or the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the famous Mohammed bin Salman, both of whom are distinguished figures associated with this new Peace Board.

Curiously, Ajay Banga, the President of the World Bank, holds a permanent seat within the Board’s inner sanctum—the Executive Committee. Conversely, António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, is nowhere to be found. The recent proclamations emanating from Washington regarding the relative importance of the UN system are merely platitudes intended to pacify the international community.

Despite denials from Trump’s subordinates, the Board of Peace represents a significant step towards attempting to dismantle the United Nations Security Council. Washington recognises that the Security Council has reached an intractable impasse. There is no prospect of reform and, furthermore, it grants immense power to China and other veto-wielding nations. Mr Trump considers all of this contrary to American interests and, above all, to the global influence of his own "extraordinary and genial" persona.

The concept of a Peace Council was originally approved on 17 November 2025 by the UN Security Council (Resolution 2803), with a mandate strictly limited to seeking a solution for the tragedy in Gaza. It was intended as a temporary, transitional administration tasked with coordinating the reconstruction of Gaza and commanding an international stabilisation force.

The body inaugurated yesterday is something quite different; it flouts the terms of Resolution 2803 and assumes a supposedly universal mandate. It is an abuse of power and yet another act of sabotage against the credibility of the UN and its central organ, the Security Council. Every political leader who declined Trump’s invitation, including Pope Leo XIV, grasped and disapproved of the American president’s true intentions.

The agenda of this Board of Peace shall be dictated by Donald Trump, now and forevermore. It will possess a significant real estate component. "Trumpian peace" will adopt a more corporate definition: the submission of the weak to the strong. Reconstruction will primarily signify the proliferation of luxury condominiums.

Had Don Quixote, or a knight of similar virtuous nobility, been admitted, he would have insisted on including situations such as the one currently unfolding in Cuba. International observers consider the country to be facing a grave socio-economic and humanitarian crisis. The Western media—with the exception of a few newspapers —has opted for silence regarding this crisis, which results from the escalation of political confrontation imposed by the Trump Administration. The primary instrument of pressure is an almost total blockade, in effect since late January, on Cuba’s access to foreign fuel. This decision has paralysed essential basic services: healthcare, water, food, electricity, waste management, and transport. As in other similar situations I have witnessed, it is the common citizens who are reduced to absolute destitution. Political leaders and those with relatives abroad invariably find alternative solutions. Thus, the crisis sharpens for the poorest, and the anticipated popular uprising fails to materialise.

These blockades are an unacceptable political gamble, reminiscent of the sieges of castles and boroughs in the Middle Ages. Such actions are prohibited by modern international law, as they constitute indiscriminate punishment with a collective impact. UN human rights experts categorise this energy siege as a "grave violation of international law" and an act of "extreme economic coercion" that threatens to lead to genocide through the deprivation of the means of subsistence.

As was remarked recently in Davos and Munich, we have returned to the rules of yesteryear—to the law of the cannon.

Fortunately, Ukraine continues to remind us of the philosophy of Sun Tzu, a vision I repeat whenever the opportunity arises: in the face of a war of aggression, peace is achieved through moral courage and strategic imagination in the legitimate defence of the aggrieved. I see no one among the guests at yesterday’s "beija-mão" (ceremonial hand-kissing) who possessed the audacity to remind Donald Trump of this truth.

Beyond the Algorithms: the Human Dimension

An Open Letter to my Readers: Human Diplomacy or Machine Algorithms?

07 February 2026

We find ourselves at a historical juncture where the traditional architecture of peace is not merely fractured—it is being rendered obsolete by a new and more insidious form of absolutism.

My recent analysis of the precipice upon which the United States and Iran now stand reveals a void where leadership ought to be. From the "lack of vigour" in the United Nations’ current leadership to the self-serving populism of regional autocrats, the "adults in the room" have effectively vacated the premises.

However, the peril we face extends beyond the formidable steel of the USS Abraham Lincoln or the multiple ballistic defiance of Tehran. We are witnessing the birth of a conflict defined by "the weaponisation of perception". We have entered the age of Digital Absolutism: a system where power no longer relies solely on the crude decree of a monarch, but on the "Black Box" of algorithmic certainty. It is a regime where those who control the data harvest the experience of the many to engineer the behaviour of all—transforming the citizen from an agent of history into a mere "vector of probability" to be predicted, nudged, or silenced.

In this "Century of Fear," as Albert Camus might have termed it, the battlefield intelligence has migrated to the digital architecture of our minds. Warfare is now waged through "false algorithms"—systems designed to saturate the decision-making process with noise, GPS spoofing that distorts the sovereignty of borders, and the mass production of misleading digital information that erodes the very possibility of a shared truth.

When I speak of the Iranian regime residing in the "Dark Ages," I refer to a fanaticism that has successfully harnessed 21st-century digital tools to enforce 16th-century repressions. Conversely, when I critique the Western response, I am inviting you to consider the "decline of courage" diagnosed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. By outsourcing our diplomacy to data-driven models and "humanitarian causes" devoid of political stature, we have allowed the human spirit to be categorised as a mere variable in a zero-sum game.

To counteract this paralysis, we must urgently pivot toward a "Diplomacy of Resolve." This is not the absence of war, but the active presence of a principled boundary. It rejects the passive "humanitarian-only" stance, moving instead toward a posture where negotiation is backed by a clear-eyed readiness to defend universal values. Unlike the "Diplomacy of Accommodation," which often descends into the appeasement of autocrats, a "diplomacy of resolve" operates on the understanding that peace is only sustainable when the cost of aggression is made unacceptably high—not just militarily, but morally and economically.

It is a commitment to "Truth-Telling" in an era of digital deception. It means calling a "Dark Age" regime by its name while simultaneously keeping the door to the negotiating table open. It is the courage to ensure that when we speak of "red lines," they are drawn in the ink of international law and defended with the collective will of nations that refuse to be bullied by either ballistic missiles or algorithmic manipulation and fake news.

The leadership required in the digital era is one that possesses the technical literacy to decode the "Permanent Lie" of digital propaganda, yet maintains the moral autonomy to override the cold, escalatory logic of the machine. We need leaders who understand that in an age of total surveillance, the most radical political act is the protection of Human Unpredictability. By this, I mean the preservation of the individual's capacity to act outside of a predetermined data set—the "divine spark" of spontaneity and moral choice that no algorithm can anticipate.

Algorithms optimized for escalation, for war and victory, see the closing of a trade artery as a logical necessity; they do not feel the "incalculable number of victims" of repression. If we are to escape this trap, we must move beyond the "shadow war" of digital deception. We require a diplomacy that is human-centric. 

To be clear, we must support the digital dissidents who use Obfuscation as a shield. Far from being a mere technical trick, Obfuscation is the deliberate injection of noise and "useful misinformation" into the surveillance engine; it is a vital act of digital guerrilla warfare that blinds the Demoniac Leviathan by making the individual's data unreadable and unpredictable, thereby reclaiming the right to a private, interior life.

As Simone de Beauvoir understood, "to will oneself free is also to will others free." Our freedom today depends on our ability to resist the Demons of both theocracy and technocracy. Sovereignty must begin with the dignity of the citizen, defended not just against Tomahawk missiles, but against the algorithmic erosion of the will and the soul. Let us demand a return to this diplomacy of resolve—one that prioritises the lived reality of individuals over the strategic abstractions of the codes defined by digital experts and extremists billionaires.

Respectfully,

Victor Ângelo

USA and Iran, a very serious conflict: what's next?

A Profoundly Perilous and Complex Confrontation: The USA and Iran

Victor Ângelo

Are we on the precipice of an armed conflict between Iran and the United States? This remains one of the pre-eminent questions of our days. The answer is neither simple nor definitive. Indeed, the risk may be considered imminent. However, the costs for both parties—and for the world at large—would be so catastrophic that it is both necessary and urgent to reach an accommodation.

Mediation ought to be undertaken by regional states or the more influential members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation—some closer to the Sunni interpretation of Islam, others to the Shia practice—provided they are acceptable to both Washington and Tehran. Ideally, the responsibility would have been vested in the UN or India. Regrettably, neither the UN Secretary-General nor the Prime Minister of India possesses sufficient credibility in this instance. Narendra Modi squandered his political capital regarding the Middle East the moment he chose to anchor his domestic power in the marginalisation of India’s Muslim citizens. He is an autocrat who plays the ethnic card and resorts to populism to retain his grip on power.

As for António Guterres, he carries no weight in Washington and is perceived in Tehran as an outsider—a Westerner approaching the twilight of his tenure. He is regarded as a Secretary-General for humanitarian causes and little else. For many, he lacks the political stature and the requisite "vigour" for conflict resolution. The fact remains that Guterres has been plagued by misfortune. Enduring two Trump administrations, each more deleterious than the last, is a singular stroke of ill luck.

The reality is that we are witnessing a formidable military escalation in the Persian Gulf, one of the world’s most sensitive regions. This escalation could trigger an open war at any moment. This is a dispute of immense complexity. The nuclear carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is currently in the Persian Gulf, accompanied by its strike group, bristling with hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and supported by elite fighter jets, satellites, and surveillance drones that monitor every movement within Iran and its territorial waters. Furthermore, the US maintains tens of thousands of personnel across five bases in the region. They also conduct constant policing of the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery for oil supplies, primarily to China, but also to India. Should either the US or Iran open a front in this transit zone, they would impede, or at the very least disrupt, the daily passage of approximately 20% of the world’s trade in oil and liquefied natural gas. The economic fallout of such a confrontation would be dramatic, both for the region and for the economies of China and numerous other nations.

Few stand to benefit from such a crisis. It is, however, difficult to believe that a deployment of American forces of such formidable proportions has merely deterrent objectives, regardless of protestations to the contrary.

On the Iranian side, military capacity is significantly inferior to that of the Americans. Currently, following the setbacks of its allies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, Yemen, and Gaza, its strategic strength rests primarily on three pillars: its vast and diversified ballistic arsenal, the mass production of drones, and the ability to sever navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb—the maritime bottleneck connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and, by extension, the Indian Ocean. Bab el-Mandeb is a vital route through which a significant portion of global trade traditionally flows.

In truth, when considering Iran, one must account for a fourth pillar: the religious fanaticism and the ferocious dictatorship that underpin Iranian political power. It was this volatile mixture of fanaticism and disregard for human life that formed the backbone of the barbaric repression against the populace last month, resulting in an incalculable number of victims. The conclusion is simple: by the standards of modern humanism, the Ayatollahs’ regime resides in a world of five centuries ago—the heart of the Dark Ages. It cannot be countenanced in this day and age, however much one respects national sovereignty or the internal politics of a state. This is a message Guterres ought to convey to Xi Jinping, reminding him that the sovereignty of any state begins with respect for the dignity and human rights of its citizens.

Xi Jinping might, indeed, begin by revisiting the principles adopted by Deng Xiaoping following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. Deng was the architect of "socialism with Chinese characteristics"—the leader who modernised China, liberalised the economy beyond state control, invited foreign investment, and ended the agriculture of famine. Xi Jinping, however, wagers primarily on absolute power, reminiscent of the Maoist era, coupled with unbridled economic capitalism and a personal brand of rivalry and competition against the US. He is above all preoccupied with Chinese supremacy in military, technological, economic, and geopolitical spheres. Consequently, he errs by aligning himself with powers that view geopolitics through an archaic lens—notably Iran and Russia, another staunch ally of the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran. Xi views the future as a zero-sum rivalry between his nation and the United States, proving that he regards global challenges and international solidarity merely as pawns in China’s international geopolitical gambit.

If Iran can only rely on allies of such a kind, the answer to my initial question must be: let there be resolve, extensive diplomacy, and an absolute respect for citizens and for peace.