As Washington remakes the Middle East with a controversial new board, a sidelined Europe risks losing its seat at the table and its power to help Gaza.
Last week, United States President Donald Trump convened the opening session of his Board of Peace at the US Institute of Peace in Washington. Over 50 heads of state attended.
The European Union sent a commissioner as a guest who watches from the side. French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated the Commission had no business attending and he accused Commissioner Dubravka Šuica of acting without any approval from European leaders.
The current situation displays the state of the EU’s Gaza policy in 2026 where Brussels acts as a marginal spectator.
What Europe Says and What Europe Does
European institutions have expressed their reservations. During the 2026 Munich Security Conference, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas noted the board has abandoned its original temporary mandate.
Kallas pointed out the current statute ignores previous promises of local representation. German officials have described the board as a unilateral bypass of the United Nations and they expressed surprise that the board has become a permanent organisation.
The official preference in Brussels is for the board to respect the original Resolution 2803. Kallas said the EU wants the board to stay within the lines of the UN resolution.
The red line is coherent. Nevertheless, the problem remains that Europe has not provided a credible substitute.
The Gap in Principle and Proposal
The EU remains a dormant financial giant. The Union provides a 1.6 billion euro programme for recovery and more than 550 million euros in humanitarian aid sent since 2023.
Such financial resources are major but they remain a neglected tool for diplomacy.
Brussels has active assets through its security missions like the Rafah Border Mission along with the planned technocratic committee.
The Centre for European Policy Studies maintains the EU can take direct action through external pressure without formally joining the board. Similarly, the European Council on Foreign Relations maintains Europeans should work with Arab partners to present a joint initiative to Trump. Such ideas have been discussed for months.
The missing ingredient is the political will to act on them as the hesitation lays bare the European Union’s true paralysis.
The Colonial Charter Problem and the Substitute
The way the Board of Peace is governed is genuinely concerning. So far only 25 of the 62 invited countries have signed the charter.
Many observers are worried about the board operating as a proprietary enterprise. Although decisions are technically made by a majority vote, they are all subject to the final approval of the chairman who is Trump himself and who is set to serve indefinitely.
However, the European Union’s own history in the region makes its moral stance feel thin. Arab states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE are making a calculated bet on the American framework.
They believe the board is the only path to reconstruction and regional power. The Arab nations have backed the transitional committee and see the board as a lasting answer. Europe should view the choice as a strategic necessity.
Engagement and Endorsement
The EU has the tools to help shape the future of Gaza. The Union lacks a proposal that moves past the stalled peace process.
The current model meets massive opposition from the current Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made his rejection of a Palestinian state very obvious.
The Union needs political bravery more than formal membership. European governments could work within the existing UN framework to support the Gaza Executive Board and the International Stabilisation Force.
Nickolay Mladenov was appointed by Trump as the High Representative for Gaza and has warned that the board must move quickly. He stated that a collapse would lead to a broader escalation of the conflict.
Mladenov is a veteran Bulgarian diplomat and his role provides an unofficial backchannel for European power. The presence of a European in that position is a strategic advantage that Brussels should use.
The Partial Peace Question
The laborious question that Europe refuses to answer is whether the fragile ceasefire is a necessary reprieve. The answer is obviously yes.
Detractors claim the plan endorsed by the UN stands as an overview of a short-sighted approach. Such criticism is valid but isolated complaining is an insufficient response to the crisis.
The EU has earned its right to be critical. The Union has spent over a billion euros on Palestinian welfare and remains committed to international law and the International Criminal Court.
Working with a flawed structure would not compromise those commitments. However, by staying outside, Brussels is losing its power to act.
Keep up with Daily Euro Times for more updates!
Read also:
Mladenov Takes Over Gaza Board After Regional Veto
From Belfast to Gaza: Britain’s Attempt to Export the Good Friday Agreement
Viceroy Blair: Why Europe Matters More Than Washington in Gaza?
