The decision by Edi Rama to accept an invitation from Donald Trump to participate in the newly created “Board of Peace” has ignited a heated debate in Albania and across Europe. The move places Tirana at the center of an emerging geopolitical conversation that touches on loyalty to transatlantic alliances, European integration ambitions, and the evolving global approach to peacebuilding — particularly regarding the Gaza conflict.
As Albania positions itself among the founding participants of the initiative, questions arise about the implications for its relationship with the European Union and its long-standing aspiration for deeper integration into the bloc.
Albania’s Swift Acceptance and Rama’s Washington Visit
Prime Minister Rama departed for Washington after accepting Trump’s invitation to attend the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace scheduled for 19 February. Reports confirm that Albania has joined as a founding member with a temporary three-year mandate.
The U.S.-led initiative is part of a broader diplomatic effort linked to a 20-point peace framework targeting stabilization and reconstruction in Gaza and potentially addressing other global conflicts. The board itself has been presented as a key component in overseeing aspects of ceasefire arrangements and reconstruction planning, with Trump positioned as its chair.
According to available reporting, Albania’s participation does not require direct financial contributions but carries responsibilities consistent with its founding status. This aspect has been emphasized by Albanian officials as evidence that the country’s involvement is diplomatic rather than financial, reinforcing its role as a contributor to peace efforts rather than a funder.
For the Albanian government, the invitation is framed as recognition of the country’s close strategic relationship with the United States — a partnership often highlighted as a cornerstone of its foreign policy orientation.
Debate Inside Albania and at the European Level
The issue quickly moved beyond symbolism into political discussion. Meetings between European Parliament representatives and Albanian officials reportedly featured pointed questions about why Tirana acted so quickly to join. The inquiry reflects broader European uncertainty about the initiative and its implications.
Across Europe, reactions to the Board of Peace have been mixed — and often cautious. Many Western European governments have declined full participation or opted for observer roles, citing concerns about governance structure, legal implications, and overlap with existing international organizations.
Some European leaders fear that the initiative could challenge or duplicate the authority of the United Nations or international law frameworks. Others have raised questions about its scope expanding beyond Gaza to wider geopolitical crises, creating uncertainty about its long-term function.
In Italy, for example, participation has been framed carefully through observer engagement tied to humanitarian reconstruction and peace monitoring under international law principles. Meanwhile, Germany and several other Western nations have indicated reluctance or refusal to take part in the inaugural meeting, underscoring the divisions emerging across Europe.
This context explains why Albania’s immediate acceptance has been interpreted by some analysts as a divergence from the cautious EU line — even if officials in Tirana insist it reflects independent diplomacy rather than alignment against Brussels.
Strategic Calculations: Between Washington and Brussels
Albania’s foreign policy balancing act is not new. As a NATO member and EU candidate country, Tirana frequently seeks to align Western commitments while preserving bilateral strategic partnerships. The United States has historically played a decisive role in Albania’s security and political trajectory, from NATO accession to regional diplomacy.
Joining the Board of Peace therefore fits a broader pattern of pro-U.S. engagement. From Tirana’s perspective, participation may elevate Albania’s international profile, offering visibility in global peace discussions that smaller states rarely enjoy.
However, critics warn that the move risks sending conflicting signals to Brussels at a time when EU accession negotiations demand policy alignment with European positions. Divergence on major foreign policy initiatives could complicate perceptions of consistency — particularly if the EU ultimately distances itself further from the project.
Supporters counter that EU states themselves remain divided and that Albania’s choice reflects pragmatic diplomacy rather than ideological positioning. Indeed, some European governments have also engaged with the initiative in limited capacities, demonstrating that consensus is far from settled.
The Broader Geopolitical Context
The Board of Peace emerges from a complex geopolitical landscape shaped by ongoing instability in Gaza and competing visions for post-conflict governance. Since late 2023, the war in the region has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties and widespread destruction, intensifying calls for reconstruction and international oversight.
The initiative’s architecture — involving invitations to dozens of global leaders — signals an attempt to create a multi-state diplomatic mechanism beyond traditional frameworks. Whether this model proves effective or controversial remains uncertain, but its creation already highlights the shifting dynamics of global diplomacy and the contest between established institutions and emerging alternatives.
For Albania, participation places the country inside this evolving diplomatic experiment rather than observing from the sidelines.
Conclusion: Opportunity or Risk for Albania?
Albania’s decision to join the Board of Peace reflects ambition and confidence in its transatlantic ties. It also demonstrates willingness to assume a visible role in international diplomacy — a move that can strengthen national prestige and influence.
Yet the debate sparked across Europe shows that the choice carries political complexity. Navigating between strategic partnership with Washington and alignment with Brussels will remain a delicate challenge for Tirana in the coming months.
Ultimately, the outcome will depend on how the initiative develops and whether Albania can translate participation into tangible diplomatic capital without undermining its European integration trajectory. For now, Rama’s Washington trip symbolizes more than attendance at a meeting — it represents a test of Albania’s foreign policy positioning in a rapidly changing geopolitical environment.