NextFin News - On Friday, January 23, 2026, Chinese President Xi Jinping held a pivotal telephone conversation with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, marking a significant escalation in the diplomatic tug-of-war over the future of global governance. According to Poder360, Xi explicitly urged the Brazilian leader to "strengthen the United Nations" and suggested a formal rejection of the newly proposed "Peace Council" championed by U.S. President Trump. The call, initiated by Beijing, comes at a critical juncture as the second Trump administration aggressively moves to bypass traditional multilateral institutions in favor of ad-hoc, bilateral security arrangements.
The "Peace Council," a cornerstone of U.S. President Trump’s 2026 foreign policy agenda, is envisioned as an elite group of nations tasked with mediating global conflicts outside the bureaucratic constraints of the UN Security Council. However, Xi characterized this initiative as a threat to the established international order, emphasizing that the UN must remain the "central pillar" of global security. This diplomatic push follows U.S. President Trump’s recent successes in brokering localized peace accords, such as the Thailand-Cambodia agreement, which the White House has used to argue that the UN is increasingly obsolete. In response, Xi is leveraging China’s strategic partnership with Brazil—a key leader of the Global South—to form a defensive bloc against what Beijing views as American unilateralism.
The timing of this intervention is no coincidence. Brazil currently holds a significant position within the BRICS+ framework and is preparing for a series of high-level summits where the legitimacy of the UN will be a central theme. According to O Globo, Lula has expressed his own frustrations with the UN’s inability to resolve the Gaza crisis, previously stating that the organization has "stopped working." Xi’s call appears designed to pivot this frustration away from institutional abandonment and toward institutional reform, ensuring that emerging powers like Brazil remain invested in the UN system where China holds a permanent veto, rather than joining a U.S.-led alternative where Washington sets the rules.
From an analytical perspective, this move represents a sophisticated "institutional hedging" strategy by Beijing. By positioning itself as the defender of the UN Charter, China is attempting to capture the moral high ground among developing nations that fear being sidelined by U.S. President Trump’s transactional diplomacy. Data from the 2025 UN General Assembly shows that while the U.S. has reduced its funding to the UN regular budget to roughly 18%, China has steadily increased its voluntary contributions to UN development programs, effectively buying influence as Washington retreats. Xi’s appeal to Lula is a calculated effort to ensure that the Global South does not defect to the "Peace Council," which would effectively grant the U.S. a mandate to manage global security without the oversight of the General Assembly.
Furthermore, the friction between the UN and the Peace Council reflects a deeper shift in the global financial and security architecture. U.S. President Trump’s administration has linked participation in his new security initiatives with favorable trade terms and relief from the 50% tariffs currently impacting many Brazilian exports. For Lula, the choice is fraught with economic risk. Rejecting the Peace Council satisfies the ideological commitment to multilateralism but risks further punitive measures from a White House that has already shown a willingness to use trade as a weapon against political adversaries. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. has already boycotted the G20 summit in Pretoria, signaling a total lack of interest in forums it cannot dominate.
Looking ahead, the success of Xi’s strategy depends on whether China can offer tangible security and economic alternatives to the U.S. President’s bilateral deals. If Brazil and other G20 members follow Xi’s lead and double down on the UN, the Peace Council may struggle to gain the international legitimacy required to function. However, if the UN continues to fail in resolving active conflicts, the gravitational pull of U.S. President Trump’s "results-oriented" diplomacy may prove too strong for even the most committed multilateralists to resist. The coming months will likely see a fragmented global order where the UN remains the forum for rhetoric, while the Peace Council becomes the venue for realpolitik, leaving middle powers like Brazil caught in a permanent state of diplomatic arbitrage.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
