Tirana Times, January 26, 2026 – Albania’s attempted entry into the Peace Board has become a revealing episode, not because of the significance of the initiative itself, but because of the way Albania’s leadership chose to stage and communicate it domestically. The Peace Board represents a new and ambitious international mechanism, conceived at the highest political level and intended to play a role in post-conflict stabilization and peace oversight. Yet Albania’s handling of its prospective membership transformed what should have been a serious foreign policy moment into an exercise in political performance.
The episode began with Prime Minister Edi Rama presenting what he described as a personal invitation from U.S. President Donald Trump to join the Peace Board as a founding member. Rama’s public response was immediate and emphatic. In a highly panegyrical statement, he declared himself “very honored by President Trump’s personal invitation” to represent Albania on the Board, portraying the move as a historic breakthrough and proof that Albania had climbed “another peak unimaginable only a few years ago.” The message framed the development almost entirely through Rama’s own leadership, crediting him personally with elevating Albania’s international standing and strengthening its strategic partnership with the United States.
According to Rama’s own framing, the letter was proof not only of Albania’s elevated international standing, but of his personal success as a leader and of his status as a founding member of the Peace Board. The personalization was total. A state-level invitation was repackaged as an individual accolade. Unsurprisingly, this triggered immediate reactions from independent observers, many of them openly sarcastic. If Rama had governed Albania so successfully, critics noted, pointing to the fact that at least one million Albanians have left the country during his decade in power, perhaps the next logical step was to administer Gaza.
That narrative began to unravel within hours. It soon became clear that similar invitations had been sent to a large number of heads of state and government. What had been portrayed domestically as a singular honor was in fact part of a broad international outreach. In this context, Albania’s reaction appeared exaggerated. Notably, only a few leaders chose to publicize the invitation in such exalted terms, among them Rama himself and Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko, who released a video signing the accession document. Other invitees, including leaders with long tenures and significant geopolitical weight, responded with far greater restraint.
The episode took on an almost surreal dimension when Rama did not attend the founding ceremony of the Peace Board in Davos. His absence was justified by the need to receive Ivanka Trump, the U.S. president’s daughter, who was visiting Albania on a business trip. The contrast was striking. An initiative presented as historically important for Albania and personally significant for its prime minister did not warrant his physical presence at its formal launch. In diplomatic terms, the gap between rhetoric and action weakened Albania’s credibility at a moment when seriousness and consistency were essential.
Uncertainty deepened when the White House published the official list of countries participating in the signing ceremony and Albania was not included. No immediate clarification was offered. Regardless of any procedural explanations that may follow, the sequence of events reinforced the impression that domestic messaging had preceded institutional and diplomatic consolidation.
The domestic political response further amplified the sense of theater. The Albanian government convened urgently to approve membership, followed by an extraordinary parliamentary session to ratify the agreement. Yet the parliamentary debate largely avoided the substance of the Peace Board’s Charter, its governance structure, or Albania’s responsibilities within it. Instead, it centered on whether Albania should be represented by a constitutional office or by a named individual. The government insisted that Albania be represented explicitly by Edi Rama rather than by the office of prime minister or president. Opposition objections, stressing institutional continuity and constitutional norms, highlighted principles of statecraft that should not have required debate.
All of this unfolded against a broader international backdrop marked by cautious engagement. The Peace Board brought together a diverse group of participants in Davos, including major regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, as well as Hungary and Bulgaria as the only EU member states to join at this stage. Many other participants came from Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Global South. At the same time, most EU member states chose not to participate. France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom declined, citing concerns related to governance, mandate clarity, and the relationship between the Peace Board and existing multilateral frameworks, including the United Nations. These decisions reflected national assessments rather than opposition to the initiative itself.
Albania’s case stands out not because it sought to engage with an important new international mechanism, but because of how that engagement was handled. While other states approached the Peace Board with institutional caution and diplomatic discipline, Albania turned the moment into a performance driven by personal validation and political symbolism. The issue was not ambition or participation, but the attempt to substitute theatrical presentation for institutional seriousness.
In the end, this episode says less about the future of the Peace Board than about the current state of Albania’s foreign policy culture. A significant international initiative was framed domestically as a personal triumph. Institutions were mobilized to sustain a narrative rather than to manage a strategic decision. Albania missed an opportunity to present itself as a sober and reliable partner in a new global initiative, offering instead a case study in how theatrical diplomacy can undermine credibility when restraint and institutional maturity are required.
The post A Case of Theatrical Diplomacy appeared first on Tirana Times.
