The invitation for Azerbaijan to join the Peace Council as a founding state has become a sign of shifting power dynamics in international diplomacy surrounding security initiatives and conflict resolution. The proposal from the American side reflects not only the development of partnership between Baku and Washington, based on principles of mutual respect and pragmatism, but also recognition of Azerbaijan’s role as an active participant in efforts to ensure peace and stability at both regional and global levels.
In recent years, Baku has consistently expanded its presence on the peacekeeping and mediation agenda — from participation in international missions to putting forward its own initiatives. International partners have paid particular attention to Azerbaijan’s experience in post-conflict settlement in the South Caucasus, as well as the country’s leadership’s active stance on security issues. In this context, the invitation to the Peace Council appears to be a logical continuation of a foreign policy course aimed at strengthening international standing and institutional engagement in new formats of global governance.
In connection with Azerbaijan’s response to the U.S. initiative, Minval Politika spoke with experts to learn what obligations are imposed on members of the body, what criteria are used to select participants, and other details.
Political analyst and member of the Milli Majlis Rasim Musabayov believes that Azerbaijan responded positively to the initiator’s proposal, taking into account the role played by Donald Trump in advancing Azerbaijani–Armenian normalization.
“The very fact that, in the presence of the American leader, a relevant declaration was adopted formalizing the established peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and that the text of a peace treaty between the parties was initialed, suggested that both Azerbaijan and Armenia would respond positively to the U.S. president’s proposal to participate in the Peace Council,” he noted.
Speaking about the obligations of Azerbaijan and other members of the international body, the parliamentarian pointed out that there are none at this stage.
“There are no obligations yet, except to follow the United States,” he emphasized.
The political analyst also commented on reports of a billion-dollar contribution: “It is said that no contributions are expected for three years, and later almost a billion dollars may be envisaged for a permanent seat on the council. What matters here is that Azerbaijan will be represented there at a high level. How the body will develop and what participation will entail in terms of obligations will become clear over time. It is also obvious that there are no obligations without benefits, and we will see what benefits members of this format may gain.”
“Further developments will show whether the structure will evolve and become established. For now, these questions remain open,” he added.
Musabayov also commented on claims that the Peace Council could replace the UN: “There is an opinion that it may become an alternative to the UN, but I do not think so, because it has been agreed in advance that permanent chairmanship of the council is assigned not just to the United States, but to Trump personally. Such a format is rarely found in international organizations. Permanent chairmanship exists mainly in private foundations, while international organizations usually assume some form of rotation.”
The expert believes that the Peace Council is essentially a club of friends and countries willing to follow the United States.
“There are no clear criteria for selecting participants, since Trump himself decides whom to invite and whom not to. At this stage, it is difficult to discern any system in this,” the deputy said.
Head of the South Caucasus Research Center and political analyst Farhad Mammadov noted that the parameters and conditions of the Peace Council remain unclear at present.
“Some experts say this represents a new system of U.S. relations with the rest of the world — a kind of Biden’s Summit for Democracy. Every U.S. president has used such initiatives to divide the world, putting forward criteria by which partners and others are distinguished. As I understand it, Trump has come up with a similar idea in the form of the Peace Council,” the expert said.
The political analyst emphasized that no country has yet published the text of the invitation “so that the goals, objectives, and parameters of participation in this initiative would be clear.”
“It is understood that this will go beyond the settlement in the Gaza sector, so many countries are studying this document to understand what needs to be done to be included on the list,” Mammadov said.
Commenting on the reported one-billion-dollar contribution, he noted that if the initiative eventually evolves into an institutionalized format of interaction with the United States, some financial commitments would naturally be required.
“However, even in the Gaza situation, we saw that the United States still needed a UN Security Council resolution, meaning that, to one degree or another, the UN platform continues to function as a channel through which decisions must be shaped,” the expert added.
Mammadov also shared his view on claims that the Peace Council could become an alternative to the UN: “Apparently, the purpose of the Peace Council is to replace UN institutions and mechanisms in a specific region. The UN has been unable to cope with the settlement in Gaza, and the U.S. president is creating a mechanism that does not align with the UN. If this succeeds, the idea could of course be expanded and institutionalized. For now, everything remains at the level of an idea, just like many similar initiatives proposed by other U.S. presidents — and the Peace Council is Trump’s initiative.”
