The UN should have solved every war I've solved
Em um momento em que a ordem global já se encontra sob pressão, Donald Trump propôs substituir as Nações Unidas por um Conselho da Paz de sua própria criação, argumentando que a organização falhou em cumprir seu propósito histórico. O gesto, nascido à margem de um acordo de cessar-fogo em Gaza, revela uma tensão mais profunda entre a lógica da liderança unilateral e a ideia de que a legitimidade internacional só emerge do concerto entre muitas nações. A ONU respondeu com firmeza, e a hesitação da França sinalizou que o mundo ainda não está pronto para abandonar as instituições que, com todas as suas imperfeições, foram construídas para conter o caos.
- Trump declarou as Nações Unidas praticamente inúteis e anunciou um Conselho da Paz como alternativa superior, elevando a retórica de desafio às instituições multilaterais a um novo patamar.
- O Conselho surgiu de um contexto específico — o acordo de cessar-fogo em Gaza — mas rapidamente ganhou ambições maiores, com convites enviados a líderes como Putin, revelando a escala do projeto americano.
- A adesão internacional foi tímida: a França de Macron já recusou participar, alegando incerteza sobre o mandato e a autoridade real do novo órgão.
- A ONU respondeu com clareza pela voz de seu principal oficial humanitário, Tom Fletcher, afirmando que a organização não vai a lugar nenhum, independentemente de propostas unilaterais.
- O episódio expõe uma disputa fundamental sobre quem detém a legitimidade para resolver conflitos globais — Washington por iniciativa própria, ou o sistema multilateral construído sobre a participação coletiva.
Em uma terça-feira de janeiro, ao completar um ano de retorno à Casa Branca, Donald Trump disse aos repórteres que as Nações Unidas haviam se tornado algo próximo da inutilidade. Em seu lugar, seu governo havia criado um Conselho da Paz — um novo fórum que, segundo ele, seria capaz de fazer o que a ONU nunca conseguiu. "A ONU deveria ter resolvido cada guerra que eu resolvi", afirmou, deixando clara a premissa: onde o multilateralismo emperrou, a liderança americana avançou.
O Conselho nasceu no contexto do acordo de cessar-fogo em Gaza e rapidamente ganhou pretensões mais amplas. Convites foram enviados a líderes mundiais, incluindo Vladimir Putin. Mas a resposta foi morna. Emmanuel Macron foi um dos primeiros a declinar, citando dúvidas sobre o que o conselho faria na prática e que autoridade teria. A reação internacional, de modo geral, ficou entre a cautela e a indiferença.
A ONU não demorou a responder. Tom Fletcher, principal oficial humanitário da organização, foi direto: a ideia de que as Nações Unidas poderiam ser substituídas simplesmente não se sustentava. "A ONU não vai a lugar nenhum", declarou, com uma firmeza que ecoou o próprio tom de Trump.
O que esse episódio revela é um choque entre duas visões sobre como o mundo resolve seus conflitos — uma centrada na iniciativa americana, outra fundada na ideia de que a legitimidade só emerge da participação ampla entre nações. A hesitação da França e a resposta imediata da ONU indicam que, mesmo diante da pressão para redesenhar a arquitetura diplomática global, as estruturas mais antigas ainda não estão dispostas a ceder terreno.
On a Tuesday in late January, Donald Trump stood before reporters at the White House to mark a year back in office, and the conversation turned to the architecture of global power. The United Nations, he said, had become something close to useless. His government, by contrast, had just created something better: a Peace Council that could do what the UN could not. He was not being modest about it.
Trump's critique of the UN was blunt. The organization, he explained, had failed to live up to its own stated purpose. He had resolved wars without consulting it, never even considered asking for its help. "The UN simply hasn't been very useful," he told the assembled press. "I'm a big believer in what the UN could be, but it's never matched its potential. The UN should have solved every war I've solved." The implication was clear: where the multilateral system had stalled, American leadership had moved.
The Peace Council Trump referenced had emerged from a specific context—a ceasefire agreement meant to end the war in Gaza between Israel and Palestinians. As part of that initiative, Trump's administration had extended invitations to world leaders to join this new body. Vladimir Putin received one. So did others. But the uptake had been tepid. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, had already declined, citing uncertainty about what the council would actually do and what authority it would hold. International reaction, observers noted, was mixed at best.
The UN did not wait long to respond. Tom Fletcher, the organization's top humanitarian official, spoke to CNN with the kind of directness that matched Trump's own tone. The idea that the UN might be replaced or superseded was, he said, simply not going to happen. "It's clear to me and to my colleagues that the United Nations isn't going anywhere," Fletcher stated. The message was firm: the institution would endure, regardless of what any single nation's leader proposed.
What emerged from this exchange was a collision between two visions of how the world's conflicts get resolved. Trump's approach centered on American initiative, on bilateral deals and councils assembled at Washington's discretion. The UN's position—and that of its member states—rested on the idea that legitimacy came from broad participation, from institutions that bound many nations together rather than serving as extensions of one power's will. France's hesitation and the UN's swift rebuttal suggested that even as Trump moved to reshape the architecture of global diplomacy, the older structures were not yet ready to cede ground. What happens next depends on whether other nations follow Trump's lead or whether the traditional multilateral system holds its ground.
Citações Notáveis
The UN simply hasn't been very useful. I'm a big believer in what the UN could be, but it's never matched its potential.— Donald Trump
It's clear to me and to my colleagues that the United Nations isn't going anywhere.— Tom Fletcher, UN humanitarian chief
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would Trump propose replacing the UN now, of all moments? What's driving this?
He's framing it as a practical matter—the UN hasn't solved the problems he thinks matter, so he's building something he can control. The Peace Council came out of the Gaza ceasefire, so it's tied to a concrete achievement he wants to own.
But doesn't the UN have legitimacy precisely because it includes everyone, even countries that disagree?
That's exactly the tension. Trump sees that as a weakness—too many voices, too much gridlock. A smaller council of leaders he invites would move faster, answer to him more directly.
So Macron's refusal to join—that's significant?
Very. It signals that even close allies aren't automatically buying in. If France won't participate, the council loses the appearance of broad international backing. It starts to look like a Trump project, not a genuine multilateral body.
And the UN's response—was that defensive?
Not really. Fletcher was matter-of-fact. He wasn't arguing the UN is perfect. He was saying it's not going anywhere because it's embedded in how the world actually works. Treaties, refugee law, humanitarian standards—they all flow through UN structures. You can't just replace that with a new council.
So what's at stake here beyond the rhetoric?
Whether the next generation of global problem-solving happens through institutions that bind many nations together, or through deals cut by whoever has the most power at any given moment.