The 'peace industry' under President Donald Trump has shifted from traditional diplomacy to a business venture managed by entrepreneurs. A recent article in the New York Times highlights a new model that blends private business interests with public political missions, reflecting a radical transformation in U.S. foreign policy.
At the forefront of this scene are Jared Kushner and Stephen Witkoff, who are considered prominent figures in Trump's circle. They bypass traditional diplomatic channels to manage major international conflicts such as the war in Gaza, the situation in Ukraine, and tensions with Iran. The article illustrates how Kushner and Witkoff, both real estate developers, approach international disputes as real estate assets that can be maximized for profit.
Event Details
Kushner's vision for post-war Gaza is evident, as he does not view it as a humanitarian or political issue but rather as a real estate opportunity to establish a 'special economic zone' based on technology and digital currencies. This mindset extends to the Ukrainian file, where mediation proposals included clauses ensuring the United States a share of reconstruction profits, effectively turning peace into a 'financial asset' whose returns are negotiated.
In this context, the 'Peace Council' was established, a quasi-international entity aimed at overseeing mediation and reconstruction efforts, yet it lacks a clear legal framework. Created by Trump through an executive order, it grants its members legal immunity from lawsuits related to their work, raising questions about its legitimacy and authority.
Context and Background
This shift in the concept of peace indicates that current initiatives are not based on traditional political principles but rather on 'investment logic.' The article sparked debate about the unconventional status of the council, which has been granted privileges akin to those of international organizations despite lacking a foundation in international treaties or clear congressional legislation.
While Trump claims that the council supports the United Nations, its U.S.-centric slogan reflects a desire to create a parallel alternative that sidelines human rights issues in favor of focusing on 'governance and management' that serve financial flows.
Impact and Consequences
The article raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest, as envoys do not receive government salaries, freeing them from financial disclosure constraints. Moreover, their private companies continue to raise billions of dollars from the same countries they negotiate with, reinforcing the notion that peace has become a self-sustaining economic activity.
Although this new model of 'business diplomacy' has not yet yielded stable results, it raises questions about the future of U.S. foreign policy. Negotiations in Gaza and Ukraine remain stalled, and talks with Iran have not led to a decisive agreement, reflecting the fragility of the regional situation.
Impact on the Arab Region
This model demonstrates how peace is no longer merely a political goal but has also become an economic activity. While some parties may achieve financial gains, the on-the-ground results remain limited and fragile, raising concerns about the stability of affected populations.
In conclusion, it can be said that the 'profit-driven peace model' has succeeded in generating gains for negotiators and investors, but it has so far failed to end wars or provide real stability for affected peoples.