ANALYSIS The decision of Nicușor Dan which divided the country. Pro and con of Romania's participation in Trump's peace council.

Nicușor Dan confirmed that he will participate as an observer at the first meeting of the Council/Board of Peace of President Donald Trump in Washington on February 19, alongside Italy and the European Commission and possibly Cyprus, provoking a wave of reactions, in the context in which either illiberal democracies or hybrid/electoral authoritarian regimes, with serious rule of law issues, have announced that they accepted the invitation to join.

Which European countries are going to the Council and how democratic are they

Among the European states that have announced they are joining or have expressed the intention to join Trump's initiative are Hungary, Albania, Kosovo, Belarus, and Turkey (in a broad sense, as a Euro-Asian state, but institutionally anchored in the Council of Europe and in the EU accession process blocked). These are, to a large extent, either illiberal democracies or hybrid/electoral authoritarian regimes, with serious issues regarding the rule of law, press freedom, and balance of powers – Hungary and Turkey being already emblematic in the reports of European institutions and democratic monitoring organizations.

In contrast, the major Western democracies – France, Germany, the United Kingdom, but also Nordic countries like Norway and Sweden – have explicitly refused to join, citing the risk that the new body could undermine the UN and relativize the norms of international law. This fissure shows that the initiative is particularly attractive to states seeking either a personalized approach to Trump's Washington or an alternative negotiation platform, outside the classic multilateral framework dominated by the EU and the UN.

Israel, participation in the Council and the de facto annexation of the occupied West Bank

Israel announced that it is joining Trump’s "Board of Peace", seeing in this mechanism a tool to influence the future security architecture in Gaza and the political arrangements post-war. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, although personally constrained by the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, accepted Israel's participation in the council, betting on the privileged relationship with Trump and the fact that he retains veto power over the forum's decisions.

At the same time, the Israeli political scene is traversed by a well-articulated current that supports the formal annexation of Palestinian territories, especially the colonies and some strategic segments of the West Bank, after years of "de facto annexation" through the expansion of colonies and a differentiated security regime. In this context, Israel's participation in the council led by Trump risks being perceived by Palestinians and part of the European public opinion as a step towards consolidating a status quo of occupation and territorial fragmentation, not as a genuine peace initiative.

Countries going as observers and the context of Romania

At this moment, Romania is discussing with Washington its participation in the first summit of the Board of Peace/Council of Peace as a mere observer, President Nicușor Dan explicitly stating that Bucharest can only accept this status, precisely because of the "discrepancies" between the Council's Charter and the international commitments already assumed, mainly within the UN and the EU. The model proposed by Romania – and followed by other cautious European states – is that of presence "at the table", but without formal commitments that contradict common European positions or the principles of international law regarding Gaza and the Palestinian territories.

The Romanian public space reacted fragmented: specialists in foreign policy and security close to the Euro-Atlantic camp welcomed the idea of an observer role, arguing that Romania cannot afford to be absent from a format where the future of the EU's eastern border and regional security architecture is discussed, as long as it remains faithful to the positions of the EU and NATO. Other analysts raised questions about the legitimacy of a council perceived as "parallel" to the UN, warning that Bucharest risks being associated with an initiative harshly criticized by key EU states, especially if Washington pushes the council towards decisions that legitimize de facto Israeli annexations or marginalize Palestinian representation.

Risks for Romania and the geopolitical framework

For Romania, participation as an observer at Trump's Council of Peace involves three types of geopolitical risks: alignment, image, and European cohesion. In terms of alignment, Bucharest must avoid being perceived as stepping out of the EU consensus on the Gaza file and Palestinian statehood, where the traditional position is to support the two-state solution and reject unilateral annexations. In terms of image, too close an association with a personalized format, directly led by Trump and contested by major European capitals, can erode Romania's credibility as a supporter of classic multilateralism in the UN and OSCE.

At the same time, there is also a strategic argument: Romania remains a frontline state of the EU, anchored in the strategic partnership with the USA, at a time when the war in Ukraine, the instability of the Black Sea, and the crisis in the Middle East are deeply interconnected. Being "in the room", even as an observer, offers access to information, informal negotiations, and potential reconstruction or regional security packages, provided that Bucharest clearly marks its red lines: no steps that contradict international law, common EU positions, and its commitments to the UN.

The public divide sparked by Nicușor Dan's decision to go as an observer to the Council of Peace

A visible divide has already formed around Nicușor Dan's decision to attend Trump's Council for Peace as an observer, between supporters and critics, both among politicians and foreign policy experts.

Among those who praised him is PSD deputy Mihai Fifor, former Minister of Defense, who described the participation as "important, correct, and necessary for Romania's positioning in an extremely complicated international moment", arguing that "Romania must be present where peace, stability, and security architecture that directly influences our future are discussed" and that "absence takes you out of the game, and Romania's voice only matters if it is heard where decisions are made." This line is supported by part of the Euro-Atlantic specialists, who emphasize that as long as Romania maintains its status as an observer and explicitly invokes "respect for international law and for the resolutions adopted at the UN", participation can be framed within the traditional logic of Romanian foreign policy of staying close to Washington, without detaching from the EU.

Remus Ștefureac argues that Nicușor Dan's participation in the Council for Peace as an observer is a wise and pragmatic decision, as it offers Romania direct access to information and negotiations without obliging it to definitive commitments, while absence would mean losing influence and visibility at a time of great regional vulnerability.

Analyst Gabriel Done emphasizes, in a comment in "Adevărul", that the decision has "strategic potential" if it is accompanied by a regional diplomatic offensive, seeing in participation a chance for Romania to link the Gaza file to the security of the eastern flank and issues such as Ukraine or Transnistria.

On the other hand, critical analysts and commentators – including from the pro-European opposition – warn that the head of state risks legitimizing, through mere presence, a body perceived as parallel and competing with the UN, fueling the perception that Bucharest is aligning too closely with a personalized initiative of Trump, rejected by key capitals in the EU, thus putting into question Nicușor Dan's repeated message regarding the "firm defense of international law, democracy, and European unity" in the files of Ukraine and Gaza.

CTP qualifies the participation, "even as an observer", at "Trump's private club" as a consecration of Romania "in a second-class state position, or second gear, in the EU", emphasizing that what matters is the presence of the president alongside Hungary, Bulgaria, and Kosovo, not the formal nuance of the status. He also points out that not even an official reception at the White House is guaranteed, comparing Romania to Poland – which does not go to Trump, but "maintains the respect of America and Europe" – and finally mocks Bucharest's stake, saying that it only hopes that "these rare metals" of Romania will interest someone.

However, among the parties in Romania, only the Movement for Romania's Sens criticized Nicușor Dan's decision directly, labeling it as "a serious political error and a gesture that undermines Romania's position internationally".

For SENS, "participation in this 'council of peace' represents a perversion of genuine efforts to build lasting peace in Palestine and a deviation from the international order based on the principles of sovereign equality of states and the self-determination of peoples. Peace is not negotiated around personal and opaque initiatives. Peace is built through international law, through legitimate institutions, and through solidarity among equal states."

The Guardian notes that Trump's solution is not a correction of the democratic deficit, but a replacement of an imperfect structure with one dominated by a single leader and a core of authoritarian or illiberal regimes, which explains why consolidated democracies – from Germany and France to Canada or Australia – prefer to stay aside.

According to The Guardian, the Board of Peace is becoming more of a geopolitical club of "countries willing to pay for access to the American president" than a legitimate instrument of global governance, and the decision of some European states to go only as observers (including Romania) reflects precisely this tension between the desire not to miss the new center of gravity and the risk of legitimizing a deeply asymmetric and opaque security architecture.

The relationship between Meloni and Donald Trump vs Romania and the USA

Both Romania and Italy announced their presence as observers at the meeting, but Romania's relationship with the USA is one of institutional strategic partnership, while Italy's relationship under Meloni with the USA is additionally a personal-political one, marked by ideological affinities with Trump. The relationship between Giorgia Meloni and Donald Trump is one of ideological closeness, but also of cold calculation, in which the Italian prime minister tries to use the personal connection with the American president without breaking European anchors. Meloni is described as an ally that Trump "can rely on", both sharing nationalist messages, cultural conservatism, anti-immigration agendas, and rhetoric against "wokeism", which has led the White House leader to treat her publicly as a "kindred spirit" and even as a privileged channel to Europe. Recent meetings in Washington and phone conversations show a cordial personal relationship – Trump praised her as a leader who "has taken Europe by storm" and accepted her invitation to come to Rome – while Meloni has tried to play the role of interface between Washington and Brussels on issues such as trade tariffs, Ukraine, or Gaza, including when she negotiated national adjustments to American tariffs on European goods. This closeness explains why Italy has been intensely courted for the Board of Peace, but also why its decision to go only as an observer, invoking constitutional limits and respect for EU balances, is relevant: it shows the tension between the personal axis Meloni-Trump and Rome's need to remain credible as a European actor, not just as a preferred ally of a deeply controversial American president. For Romania, in contrast, the axis with the USA is defined by stable documents and formats: the Strategic Partnership launched in 1997, bilateral strategic dialogue, defense cooperation (Deveselu, bases at Mihail Kogălniceanu and Câmpia Turzii, rotation of American troops), plus the constant emphasis on NATO, the eastern flank, and the Black Sea. Bucharest presents itself as "a close ally and strategic partner of the USA" within NATO and the EU, but the official discourse is technical, predictable, pro-multilateral, with the main stake on security, deterring Russia, and energy and infrastructure projects.

Analysis conducted with the support of NewsVibe and Perplexity