By Andrea Pimpini 
Although Italy is now a distant memory in my daily life, from Macao I continue to follow closely what happens in the world. Of course, I focus on my field of study —tourism and diversification—but I always keep an eye on European and global politics. And what has happened with the so‑called board of peace, an initiative promoted by Trump, is something I personally consider pathetic, worrying, and indicative of the political direction that many countries, Italy included, are taking.
This is not just geopolitics. This is about institutional dignity. This is about autonomy. This is about international credibility.
Above all, this is about understanding whether Italy is still making decisions as a sovereign state, or whether it is simply following initiatives built around the figure and power of a single individual.
This is an opinion piece based on the text of the so‑called Charter of Trump’s Board of Peace, publicly available online, and on information reported by media and institutional sources. The opinions expressed are personal.
The role of the President of the Republic and the choice of the Meloni Government
When the first reports emerged about Italy’s possible participation to the board of peace, I felt a spark of hope: that Italy would maintain a position consistent with its Constitution and with the values of freedom and equality.
The President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, represents the unity of the State and is the guarantor of the Constitution. His role is not symbolic, but substantial in preserving institutional balance and the country’s international credibility.
For this reason, when reconstructions suggested that he had expressed caution or opposition to Italy’s participation, I thought Italy would maintain a clear position.
Instead, the government led by Giorgia Meloni found a political compromise: going against the will of the President of the Republic, they chose to participate to the board of peace as an “observer”.
Formally, this is not membership. Politically, however, it is anything but neutral.
Because observing means being present. It means legitimizing the existence of the initiative. It means recognizing its political context. It means, above all, not having the courage to say no, lowering the head.
What the Charter of the Board of Peace really says
To understand the nature of the board of peace, it is enough to read the text of the charter.
One of the most significant points concerns the duration of membership and the role of financial contributions:
(c) Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three‑year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force.
In other words, the permanence of states depends on the chairman, Trump. And financial contribution can directly influence the stability of membership. If you don’t pay, you can stay three years; if you pay at least one billion dollars, then you stay forever (or at least until the chairman wants you).
This model does not resemble traditional multilateral organizations, but rather a structure in which decision‑making and organizational power are heavily centralized. Centralized not in the United States, but in the figure of Trump.
The power of the chairman: a figure with extended authority
The charter clearly establishes who holds the role of chairman of the board of peace:
Article 3.2: Chairman
(a) Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace, and he shall separately serve as inaugural representative of the United States of America, subject only to the provisions of Chapter III.
(b) The Chairman shall have exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities as necessary or appropriate to fulfill the Board of Peace’s mission.
This means that Donald Trump is not only chairman, but also has the exclusive power to create, modify, or dissolve internal structures.
This is not a system of distributed governance. This is a system in which organizational power is concentrated in a single figure.
It is also worth noting the clear division expressed in Article 3.2: Trump appoints himself chairman, and this role is separate from that of representative of the United States. This means that even if Trump were no longer the representative of the United States, he would still remain chairman with absolute powers.
The decision‑making process and the chairman’s final authority
The charter formally provides for a majority system, but introduces a decisive element:
(e) Decisions shall be made by a majority of the Member States present and voting, subject to the approval of the Chairman, who may also cast a vote in his capacity as Chairman in the event of a tie.
This means that even in the presence of a majority among states, the decision remains subject to the chairman’s approval.
In practical terms, this means that the chairman’s opinion always and inevitably outweighs the majority.
Succession and Leadership control
The charter also provides that the chairman may designate his own successor:
Article 3.3: Succession and Replacement
The Chairman shall at all times designate a successor for the role of Chairman. Replacement of the Chairman may occur only following voluntary resignation or as a result of incapacity, as determined by a unanimous vote of the Executive Board, at which time the Chairman’s designated successor shall immediately assume the position of the Chairman and all associated duties and authorities of the Chairman.
Future leadership remains tied to the chairman’s own designation. Thus, even if the executive board were to decide to remove the current chairman, Trump, the successor would not be chosen by the executive board but would still be the one designated by Trump.
But pay attention: it is always the chairman who selects the members of the executive board, and they can be dismissed at the chairman’s discretion.
(a) The Executive Board shall be selected by the Chairman and consist of leaders of global stature.
(b) Members of the Executive Board shall serve two‑year terms, subject to removal by the Chairman and renewable at his discretion.
A joke.
Italy’s participation and the political meaning of symbols
In this context, the presence of Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani at the inaugural ceremony assumed a very strong symbolic value.
Publicly released images show him holding a hat with the political slogan “Make America Great Again”, directly associated with Donald Trump.
A foreign minister represents the State (in theory not someone else’s, but his own—the one in which he was elected) and not a foreign leader.
Symbols in diplomacy are never neutral. Every gesture communicates a position.
And seeing the representative of Italian foreign policy visually associated with a political slogan of another country, and in particular of a figure (Trump) who repudiates, as already mentioned earlier, all the values on which Italy is theoretically based, raises legitimate questions about Italy’s autonomy, dignity, and international perception.
Board of Peace: the contrast with other countries’ positions
According to available information, several countries—including France, Germany, Spain, Ireland, and Norway—did not join, having had the courage to say no.
Italy, or rather Meloni and her team, did not have this courage. Participating in the Board of Peace is not a signal of openness to discussion, as the current government wants to suggest. Because diplomacy does not mean saying yes to everyone and always bowing your head—that is subordination.
A broader question: the direction of Italian foreign policy
This issue is not only about this specific “board of peace” initiative.
It concerns the general direction of Italian foreign policy.
It concerns the relationship between Italy and its historic allies.
It concerns consistency with the principles of the Italian Constitution, which promotes international cooperation, respect for law, and balance among states.
Foreign policy choices define a country’s role in the world.
They define its credibility.
They define its independence.
Participating as observers does not mean being neutral.
It means being present.
It means legitimizing.
It means accepting, at least implicitly, the context and structure of the initiative.
In a democracy, citizens have the right—and perhaps the duty—to question these choices.
This is not about being for or against a single political leader. This is an important point: because the Italian people, but I believe this applies to other countries as well, are used to supporting a political party as if it were a football team. So even if the team keeps making mistakes, even illegal actions, they support it because it is tradition.
It is about asking what Italy’s role is.
Whether it is an autonomous role.
Or a role subordinated to the initiatives and visions of others.
This is the real question.
And it is a question that deserves a clear answer.
I conclude by saying that I am not partisan. I do not follow any political party; I follow my own ideas. And these choices that the government is making are choices that go against all the ideas I have. But this article is not written simply because I disagree with their choices. If that were the reason, I would have had to write articles against every Italian government I have seen take the chair.
I write this article because this government is increasingly worrying. The affiliation with Trump, the subordination to America, the sharing of these dangerous ideas—I see it not only in this matter but also in the justice reform, for example. The tones that Nordio and Meloni are using remind me very much of those of Trump. The comparison is very close: Trump is attacking the Supreme Court that annulled his tariffs, Meloni and her team are attacking the magistracy/judiciary body.
Continue following thegametv and read our opinion articles.
TheGameTV Editorial Team