President Nicușor Dan should refuse the invitation to participate in the inaugural meeting of the Peace Council

Sources from the Presidential Administration confirmed for Digi24 that President Nicușor Dan was invited to Washington on February 19 to participate in the inaugural meeting of the Peace Council.

PHOTO Presidency

The reasons why Nicușor Dan was not in Davos and did not sign the initial act of the Peace Council are still in force today:

“The problem is, so it is not about will, the problem is about international law. How can we have a charter that is not in contradiction, because there are issues in contradiction in the initial version, with the international treaties to which Romania is a party. And this type of negotiations on the charter, on international agreements, is usually a matter of many months”. stated the president Nicușor Dan.

With the exception of Hungary and Bulgaria, the European countries did not sign the initial act put on the table by President Trump at Davos.

The World Council of Peace, (Board of Peace, BoP) is not a formal international organization recognized by the UN, NATO, or other international institutions. It is a private proposal of Trump, which after his departure from the head of the USA will probably be abolished.

It does not have legal status or an operating framework adopted by international bodies, such as a UN convention. In the international press, BoP is treated more like a propaganda image of Trump at Davos, sometimes criticized by other leaders and not being integrated into existing structures in diplomacy.

The BoP has zero formal international legitimacy, it is a political/media initiative of Trump, not recognized by the international system.

Here are some of the provisions of the BoP statute:

-Donald J. Trump is explicitly designated as the inaugural “Chairman” (President) of the BoP;

-He has the exclusive authority to invite members, to create or dissolve subordinate entities and to interpret or apply the statute;

-There is no term limit for Trump: he serves until his resignation or incapacity, with succession designated by himself;

-Members are states and sovereign entities invited by the Chairman;

-The standard term of membership is up to 3 years, renewable with the Chairman's approval;

-If a country contributes at least USD 1 billion in the first 12 months after entry into force, it can become a permanent member without a term limit;

-The Executive Council, made up of 7 members, elected by the Chairman, responsible for implementing the wider decisions of the Board;

We saw how Poland treated the Trump Administration with disdain, because the American ambassador to Poland criticized the speaker of the Polish Parliament.

The Polish Minister of Justice, Waldemar Zurek, categorized as “blackmail” the statements of the US Ambassador to Poland, Tom Rose, who threatened to withdraw the American troops stationed in Poland.

Romania is part of the EU and not of the countries that “obey” Trump. The initiative to call Nicușor Dan has as its objective the disintegration of the EU unity, if Romania, maybe Slovakia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic come along with Hungary, in order to validate Trump's initiative.

Nicușor Dan's argument is very good and still stands:

This BoP must not be in contradiction with international treaties to which Romania is a party, and it takes time to establish whether or not there are contradictions.

I understand that America is in partnership with Romania and ensures, for now, the country's defense against the Russians, in case they conquer Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova. It is not clear what would happen if America were to withdraw from NATO.

But everything has a limit. The position of the EU towards this BoP is more important, we are in the EU and we have to ensure the unity of the EU in international issues, even against Trump's foreign policy, which, in fact, no one understands.

In conclusion, if the important EU countries were not invited or will not participate in the meeting in Washington, Romania must do the same. With the argument that we cannot contradict the international treaties to which we are already a party.