Diplomacy
Trump’s ‘Peace Board’ blueprint grants US-backed authority total control over Gaza
The “Peace Board,” officially established by US President Donald Trump in Davos, Switzerland last week, is developing comprehensive plans for a US-backed administration to govern Gaza, according to a draft resolution.
Drop Site obtained an unsigned document dated January 22, 2026, titled “Resolution No. 2026/1,” from three independent sources in regular contact with US and Israeli officials regarding the reconstruction of Gaza. These sources confirmed that the document’s contents align with ongoing discussions in Israel and the US concerning the implementation of proposed administrative structures for the Gaza Strip.
The resolution, the first of its kind from the “Peace Board,” outlines the structure of a US-backed governing authority that would assume total legislative, executive, and judicial control over Gaza, including “emergency powers.” The stated objective of the “Peace Board” is to transform Gaza into a “demilitarized, deradicalized, and terror-free zone that poses no threat to its neighbors.”
The copy of the document obtained by Drop Site remains unsigned, with a blank space designated for Donald J. Trump to sign in his capacity as “Chairman of the Peace Board.” It remains unclear whether the resolution has been officially adopted or if the version obtained reflects the final text.
Metadata indicates the document was initially created by the State Department in mid-December. Its date coincides with Trump’s attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he presided over the formal launch of the board.
The draft resolution establishes a hierarchical structure for the “Peace Board.” While Trump serves as chairman, an executive board will hold “the same authority, power, and capabilities as the Peace Board and shall assume all powers necessary and appropriate to implement the Comprehensive Plan.” This Executive Board would be empowered to “enact new laws, and amend or repeal existing civil and criminal statutes” in Gaza.
The resolution lists nine members of the executive board: seven were announced by the White House on January 16, while two others had not yet been publicly disclosed. The previously announced members include Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, businessman Mark Rowan, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and Deputy National Security Advisor Robert Gabriel.
The document reveals two new names: White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles and Martin Edelman, a real estate attorney and special advisor to the United Arab Emirates government. Simultaneously, a Gaza Executive Board will be established, featuring several members serving in advisory roles.
The draft resolution also creates the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), described as a “vetted, technocratic, apolitical committee” of Palestinians operating under the strict supervision of a High Representative. Nikolay Mladenov, the former Bulgarian defense and foreign minister and ex-UN Middle East envoy, has been appointed High Representative. Ali Shaas, a former Palestinian Authority official, will head the NCAG.
While no Palestinians were included on the “Peace Board” itself, Trump has granted a seat to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who currently faces war crimes charges and an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court.
Critics describe the board as an attempt to bypass United Nations oversight—or even position itself as a private alternative to the UN—operating in an environment where it is accountable solely to Trump.
“Regrettably, the Peace Board and its subsidiary structures are neither representative nor accountable,” said Martin Griffiths, former UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. “This is evident in the unlimited powers granted to President Trump.”
The most striking example of this imbalance is found in the resolution’s approach to Palestinians, whose participation is reduced to the “lowest and most technical level.” The draft resolution states that only those who “continuously support and act” toward creating a Gaza that is “demilitarized, deradicalized, and poses no threat to its neighbors” will be eligible to “participate in governance, reconstruction, economic development, or humanitarian activities in Gaza.”
The resolution prohibits the participation of any individual or entity deemed to have a “history of cooperation, infiltration, or influence with Hamas or other terrorist groups,” or those who have supported them. While the process for these determinations is not explicitly detailed, the Executive Board and High Representative will establish “eligibility standards for participation in the development of the New Gaza,” applying them on a case-by-case basis with Trump’s approval.
The Peace Board blueprint envisions the creation of “humanitarian zones” and “controlled civilian protection corridors” patrolled by an International Stability Force (ISF). Access will be restricted to individuals approved by the Executive Board and the High Representative, with boundaries determined by unspecified “operational and security requirements.”
The “interim” ISF will be led by US Major General Jasper Jeffers. The Board Chairman (Trump) will have the authority to approve or replace commanders and vet future lead nations.
Although the resolution states that “no one will be forced to leave Gaza” and those wishing to leave “may do so freely and return,” it explicitly notes that access to resources, aid, and political participation in Gaza will be contingent upon compliance with the “Comprehensive Plan” and the Board’s authority.
Griffiths criticized the resolution for reducing Palestinians to “implementers of others’ decisions,” noting they are “once again denied mastery over their own destiny.” He added that while Israel has a “seat at the top table,” Palestinians remain “dispossessed and excluded.”
“They are found nowhere but at the very bottom of this power pyramid,” Griffiths added.
The resolution stipulates that all provisions will take effect immediately upon signing.
Diplomacy
India’s Russian oil imports hit record high as Middle East tensions disrupt markets
India is increasing imports of Russian oil and coal as supply chain disruptions and rising prices linked to tensions involving Iran reshape global energy flows.
According to a Reuters report citing data from analytics firm Kpler, shipments from Russia to India reached record levels in June.
Kpler estimates that Russian oil deliveries to India will rise to a record 2.55 million barrels per day in June.
That would surpass both the 2.13 million barrels per day recorded in May and the previous high of 2.16 million barrels per day registered in May 2023.
Russia’s share of India’s total oil imports in June is expected to come in at just under 50%. Before the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East, the figure averaged 23% during the three months preceding February 28.
India’s shift toward Russian crude followed the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran and a temporary suspension of sanctions on purchases by the administration of US President Donald Trump in an effort to increase market supply.
However, the sanctions waiver expired on June 17 and was not extended by the US Treasury Department.
Reuters noted that this could lead to a decline in purchases of Russian crude, although the outcome will depend on the willingness of Indian refiners and government officials to return to sourcing shipments from Middle Eastern suppliers.
According to Kpler forecasts, imports from Saudi Arabia are expected to remain at 349,000 barrels per day in June. That compares with an average of 832,000 barrels per day during the three months before the conflict.
A similar trend is visible in coal imports. Imports of Russian coal across all grades are expected to reach 3.16 million tonnes in June, compared with 3.27 million tonnes in May.
Both figures would rank as the second and third highest on record, respectively, behind the peak of 3.76 million tonnes registered in May last year.
Russia is also expected to overtake Australia in June to become the second-largest supplier of coal to India, the world’s second-largest coal importer after China.
According to Reuters, Russia is likely to maintain its role as one of India’s key coal suppliers. Future purchases of Russian oil, however, will depend on whether Washington moves to tighten sanctions against Moscow.
New Delhi says oil shipments will not be affected by sanctions
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in mid-June that the country had increased purchases of Russian oil since 2022 at Washington’s request in order to help contain global energy prices.
Jaishankar criticised US restrictions on Russian commodities and urged policymakers not to present such measures as matters of grand principle.
Sujata Sharma, a representative of India’s Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, also said in May that shipments from Russia were continuing and would do so regardless of US decisions concerning sanctions waivers.
Indian refiners reduced imports from Russia in 2025 and turned to suppliers in Saudi Arabia and Iraq amid pressure from the United States and threats of a 25% tariff on Indian goods.
However, Reuters data show that following the outbreak of war in the Middle East and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Indian companies began increasing purchases of Russian crude again in early March.
Russia’s ambassador to New Delhi, Denis Alipov, said at the end of April that Moscow was prepared to supply as much raw material as India was willing to accept.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later confirmed that Moscow remained committed to its agreements on energy shipments to India.
Diplomacy
EU, US and China intensify competition over Africa’s strategic minerals through Lobito Corridor
Africa is becoming an increasingly intense arena of competition among China, the US and the European Union over access to strategic raw materials.
According to an analysis by German Foreign Policy, the Lobito Corridor, a rail link connecting the copper belt of Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Atlantic port of Lobito in Angola, is playing a pivotal role in that contest.
The infrastructure project is regarded as one of the flagship initiatives of the EU’s Global Gateway strategy and is also viewed by Washington, which is investing in the region, as a means of reducing dependence on China.
In the future, copper, cobalt, lithium and other raw materials essential for the production of batteries, electric vehicles, digital technologies and military equipment will be transported westward via this route.
The initiative builds on infrastructure originally constructed during the colonial era to facilitate the export of African raw materials.
Critics argue that the expansion of the Lobito Corridor perpetuates existing patterns of resource extraction under new conditions.
Global Gateway as a counter to the Belt and Road
The European Commission approved the Global Gateway programme in September 2021.
Under the programme, nearly €300 billion is to be invested in infrastructure projects across Africa, Asia, Oceania, Southeast Europe, and South and Central America by 2027.
The programme is widely viewed as a response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
One of its central objectives is to diversify Europe’s imports of critical raw materials, particularly by reducing dependence on supplies from China.
During a visit to China in late May 2026, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche of the CDU underscored the importance of secure access to critical raw materials and rare earth elements. This is the area in which Germany remains most dependent on China.
Colonial-era infrastructure remains intact
One of the clearest examples is the 1,300-kilometre Lobito Corridor, which runs from the edge of the Zambia-Southern Congo copper belt to the port of Lobito in Angola.
The core infrastructure of this trade corridor was established through the Benguela Railway, which was built as early as 1902 at the height of European colonial expansion. The railway extended eastward from the port city of Lobito through what is now Angola, providing access to the mineral-rich regions of southern Congo and Zambia.
In 1931, following completion of the initial railway line, the British mining and railway company Tanganyika Concessions transferred its 99-year concession rights to Portugal’s colony of Angola.
The concession expired in 2001, after which the infrastructure, previously controlled by Portuguese authorities, was transferred to the Angolan government.
By 2030, annual copper shipments through the route are expected to reach one million metric tonnes.
Both the EU and the US are relying heavily on the Lobito Corridor in an effort to counter China’s dominant position in Africa’s raw materials sector.
Estimates indicate that roughly two-thirds of global cobalt production originates in the Congo, where Chinese companies are particularly active in mining operations.
China also accounts for approximately 75% of global cobalt processing capacity.
The colonial-era rail line leading to Lobito is intended to redirect exports of copper, cobalt and other raw materials, which have until now largely been shipped eastward via Tanzania, toward western markets, enabling processing in Europe or North America rather than China.
Europe seeks to reduce dependence on China for the green transition
In addition to copper and cobalt, the region holds substantial deposits of lithium, coltan, nickel and rare earth elements, giving it significant economic importance.
These materials are used in electric vehicle batteries, stationary energy storage systems and alloys required for military aircraft production.
Until now, the EU has sourced much of these materials from China. Strategic investment in a new logistics hub in Luau, Angola, located along the Lobito Corridor, is intended to reduce that dependence.
The railway line along the corridor is already operated by a European consortium.
The consortium includes Swiss commodities trader Trafigura, Portuguese construction group Mota-Engil and Belgian rail company Vecturis.
However, the majority of the mines remain under Chinese control. In the Congo, 24 of the country’s 33 cobalt-exporting companies are Chinese-backed.
The Lobito Corridor is being developed through an EU-US partnership
EU efforts to secure influence over the Lobito Corridor are advancing in parallel with similar initiatives by the United States.
In early 2022, the US signed a memorandum of understanding with the EU and other G7 members to mobilise more than $600 billion for infrastructure projects worldwide over the following five years as part of the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII).
The Lobito Corridor is one of five key trade, transit and development corridors in Southern Africa designed to improve transport efficiency.
During the administration of President Joe Biden, financing for the Lobito Corridor was launched under the G7’s PGII framework as a flagship project in cooperation with the Global Gateway initiative.
The EU also regards the expansion of the Lobito Corridor as a critical project and has committed more than €2 billion in funding.
That support could increase further. The next EU budget cycle beginning in 2028 envisages nearly doubling spending on development and external assistance, from €108 billion to €200 billion.
EU officials present the strategy as an effort to offer a more comprehensive approach to infrastructure financing than China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
‘America First’ in Africa
The US has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars for the expansion of the Lobito Corridor.
In the final quarter of 2025 alone, it provided $553 million in loans for the project’s expansion.
An additional $200 million in support came from the Development Bank of Southern Africa.
Unlike the Biden administration, which frequently described the initiative as development assistance, the second Trump administration openly characterises the project as an effort to weaken China’s influence, strengthen US control over critical raw materials and diversify supply chains.
For example, Frank Garcia, a former naval officer appointed in late May as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, praised the Trump administration’s continuing engagement on the continent.
Highlighting the Lobito Corridor in particular, Garcia said the project aligns key US interests in Africa with the “America First” approach.
Germany in Africa for the energy transition
Last autumn, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier travelled several kilometres on the newly restored railway line along the Lobito Corridor and described it as “a strategic infrastructure project of enormous economic importance.”
The German politician added: “Of course, this infrastructure connection also creates investment opportunities for European and German companies along its route.”
Portuguese construction company MCA is currently building solar energy parks in 60 municipalities across Angola at a cost of just under €1.29 billion.
The client is Angola’s Energy Ministry, while the German government is supporting the project through export credit guarantees.
Should Angola fail to meet its payment obligations, Germany would step in. A total of 95% of the project value is guaranteed by the Federal Republic of Germany.
In return, Angola agreed to allow German companies to participate in the project. For example, the battery storage system is being supplied by SMA Solar Technology, based in Niestetal near Kassel.
German solar technology provider Gantner Instruments Environment Solutions is supplying the digital control system.
Critics of the Lobito Corridor expansion warn that the project will primarily benefit the EU and the US.
In their view, the initiative promotes the export of African raw materials rather than strengthening intra-African trade.
Although the EU presents these measures as a development project aligned with African interests, critics argue that they ultimately represent a continuation of Western exploitation of African resources.
Diplomacy
EU presses Türkiye for non-Russian gas supplies under future energy contracts
The European Union is insisting that natural gas delivered to member states via Türkiye under new supply agreements must not be of Russian origin.
German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said after an official visit to Ankara that “Türkiye understands that the EU attaches great importance to ending the supply of raw materials originating from Russia and accepts this reality.”
Reiche added that Turkish officials had made it clear that replacing supplies from Russia could not be achieved overnight, either economically or in terms of available alternative sources.
As of June 17, a ban on pipeline natural gas imports from Russia under short-term contracts signed more than a year ago entered into force across the European Union.
The measure was approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament at the end of last year. In January 2025, EU member states also voted to phase out Russian gas completely by 2027. Under that decision, member states are required to verify the origin of gas supplies before authorizing deliveries.
Meanwhile, Swiss-based company Nord Stream 2 AG, the operator of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, has launched legal action challenging the regulation imposing the ban on Russian gas imports.
Türkiye, for its part, is continuing negotiations with Gazprom on natural gas supplies for the period after 2026, as existing contracts are approaching expiration.
Energy and Natural Resources Minister Alparslan Bayraktar previously said the parties had yet to reach agreement on potential shipment volumes and the duration of any new contracts.
In December 2025, Ankara extended by one year two agreements with Gazprom covering gas deliveries through the TurkStream and Blue Stream pipelines.
Türkiye is seeking to reduce Russia’s share of its gas supply mix. Russia’s share of Türkiye’s natural gas imports has already fallen below 40%.
As part of its energy diversification strategy, Ankara plans to replace part of Russian gas imports with supplies from the United States and Central Asia.
Bayraktar previously said that despite US calls to abandon Russian energy resources, Türkiye would continue purchasing natural gas from Russia.
“We cannot tell our citizens there is no gas available. We have agreements with Russia. Winter is approaching. We need gas from Russia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan,” Bayraktar said.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
