Features

Early Childhood Education: The Gap Between Family and Institutional Care

Published

7 months ago

July 22, 2025

Joshua Dale Brown, a 26-year-old early childhood educator, had worked in various childcare centers across Melbourne over the past seven years. In July this year, he was revealed to have allegedly committed prolonged sexual abuse against eight young children.

He now faces over 70 charges, including child sexual assault, production of child abuse materials, and contaminating objects with intent to cause fear and anxiety.

This case is shocking. How could a man gain repeated access to children over seven years abusing them and recording child sexual abuse materials, without anyone noticing or stopping him? Sexual violence typically occurs within the family, but this case unfolded in what is widely considered one of the safest spaces: a childcare center. These centers are presumed to be staffed by professionally trained carers and closely regulated by the government. Yet, even such a system failed to prevent these crimes. This forces us to reflect: Does our childcare system genuinely protect children?

From Historical Support System to Modern Dilemma

The rise of early childhood care systems was originally a response to the women’s liberation movement and changes in the labor market. In the mid to late 20th century, more women entered the workforce, prompting a redivision of family roles. Societies began building systems to help dual-income families, including parental leave, childcare subsidies, and childcare institutions.

In Australia, starting in the 1990s, the government promoted childcare subsidies and regulatory policies aimed at ensuring basic care for children while also boosting the labor force and stimulating the economy. Initially, these efforts supported countless families and opened new career paths for many women.

However, as reliance on childcare services grows and long-term investment lags, the system has begun to show signs of strain. What began as a “supplemental role” has now become the only option for many families. Childcare is no longer merely a support service but a daily necessity. The system has taken on responsibilities that were once shared by families and communities, yet without matching oversight or investment. As a result, it is now overburdened and unbalanced, creating opportunities for people like Joshua Brown to exploit it.

A System of Short-Term Employment

A look at Joshua Brown’s employment history shows that between 2019 and 2025, he worked at 20 different childcare centers in Melbourne. Some jobs lasted only a day, others a week or a month, which were clearly temporary and part-time roles, allowing him to move frequently between centers.

In such a flexible and short-term employment system, regular staff have little opportunity to truly get to know temporary employees, their backgrounds, or behavioral patterns. Sometimes, they can’t even recall their names. This makes it nearly impossible to build effective monitoring relationships. Temporary workers often appear for just a day or two before moving on, making misconduct hard to detect, document, or report. Young children, with their limited memory and verbal skills, often cannot identify their abusers or even recall temporary staff, making it difficult to lodge complaints or raise red flags.

As society pushes for gender equality, more women are returning to work, drastically increasing the demand for childcare. Yet with supply failing to keep up, Australia’s childcare industry faces a severe workforce shortage. In response, the government expanded subsidies in the 1990s to speed up the sector’s growth. While this improved supply, it also triggered quality and oversight problems.

Currently, Australia’s childcare services include long day care centers, community preschools, family daycare, and in-home care. Nearly 70% of these services are run by for-profit private entities, with the rest managed by community or non-profit organizations. Private providers often cut costs by offering low wages and hiring a large number of part-time or casual workers. This leads to high staff turnover and inconsistent care quality. Many centers do not employ enough supervisory staff, or avoid hiring experienced workers due to budget constraints. This creates unmonitored environments where temporary staff operate alone, leaving children vulnerable to abuse by those with harmful intent.

A Shortcut to Immigration

Another issue stemming from the labor shortage is the use of childcare roles as a pathway to immigration. The government has listed early childhood carers as skilled migration occupations. As a result, many people view these jobs as a way to stay in Australia. After completing university degrees, some enroll in diploma-level childcare programs to become certified carers.

However, childcare work is demanding: low pay, high responsibility, emotional intensity, and strict standards. Unless someone genuinely loves working with children, many treat the job merely as a stepping stone for visa eligibility or permanent residency.

But are these individuals truly equipped for the role? Many education providers now offer one-year crash courses tailored for these migrants. Can such short-term training genuinely prepare them to care for children safely and competently? This risks degrading the quality of care and increases safety concerns for children.

Is the Current Regulatory System Effective?

While demand for childcare rises, the regulatory system is failing to keep up. Between 2013 and 2023, available places in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) increased by 50%, with long day care capacity up 69%. By 2023, nearly half of one-year-olds and 90% of four-year-olds were enrolled in ECEC services.

However, rapid expansion hasn’t guaranteed quality. According to the National Quality Standard (NQS), as of 2025, about 10% of centers are still rated as only “Working Towards” the minimum benchmark.

Australia’s main regulatory framework, which is the National Quality Framework (NQF), overseen by the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), evaluates centers on seven criteria, including curriculum, child safety, staff qualifications, and governance.

Though the NQF outlines assessment procedures, it does not specify how often centers must undergo formal reviews or on-site visits. With over 10,000 ECEC services nationwide and limited resources, actual inspections are infrequent. In a sector plagued by labor shortages and high turnover, relying on self-reporting and risk-based audits is insufficient to identify problems early.

In fact, Joshua Brown had been reported twice in the two years before his crimes were exposed, accused of handling children roughly. These allegations were confirmed via an internal investigation by the center operator, G8. The incidents were reported to the Victoria Reportable Conduct Scheme and the Commission for Children and Young People. Yet despite verified misconduct, the Commission chose not to reassess his Working with Children Check. Instead, he was suspended, given a disciplinary warning, and later returned to work. This raises serious concerns about whether authorities fully grasped the potential risks and whether someone capable of harming children should have been allowed to return to childcare work.

Reforming the System at Its Core

While discussions around regulatory mechanisms are necessary, perhaps we also need to reconsider: is regulation truly the most effective long-term solution? Certainly, strengthening background checks, increasing inspection frequency, and adding risk reporting mechanisms are all important, but these are largely reactive measures. If we truly hope to prevent such tragedies at their root, a more effective approach may lie in raising the professional standards and ethical awareness of childcare workers for cultivating their respect for and understanding of child development. This must begin with education, not just qualifications and certificates.

Currently, many fast-tracked childcare certificate programs focus only on meeting the “minimum passing requirements” and fail to instill a genuine sense of mission or responsibility in caregivers. If Australia can invest in long-term, in-depth, and value-oriented training and internship programs, it would help workers truly grasp the professional nature of the job and its impact on young lives. Only then can the culture of the industry gradually shift, and broader society begin to respect childcare as a legitimate profession. This kind of structural educational reform may be costly, but its long-term benefits far outweigh the reactive costs of investigations and disciplinary actions.

To fundamentally improve the culture of childcare systems, education must focus on cultivating a deep understanding and respect for child development, not just acquiring the minimum certificate. An ideal training system should include modules on child psychology and behavioral development, professional ethics, identifying and supporting mental health concerns, and should offer sufficient hands-on internships and professional supervision. Moreover, ongoing professional development and cross-disciplinary collaboration are essential to improving the overall quality of care. Only in this way can we nurture caregivers with a sense of mission and professional integrity when people are truly equipped to safeguard children’s safety and development.

The Role and Responsibility of Parents

This case also reveals profound shifts in modern family dynamics and their potential consequences. In the past, raising and caring for children was seen as a non-negotiable responsibility of parents. In traditional families, many mothers acted as full-time caregivers, providing constant protection and a stable attachment figure for the child. While the societal view of “stay-at-home moms” carried gender stereotypes, children did have a relatively consistent care environment and familiar adults around them.

However, with dual-income households becoming the norm, more and more parents now outsource childcare to daycare centers, after-school programs, or government services. Even full-time parents often, due to life pressures or personal needs, choose to delegate some of their caregiving responsibilities to friends, family, or through personal time. Within the family, caregiving roles are diversifying. Parents naturally hope their children can grow up in a safe and protected environment, but they also want affordable, flexible, and convenient services. This contradiction has created a structural dilemma: an overreliance on external resources that are increasingly overstretched.

Under pressure to keep costs down, both the government and the industry often prioritize expansion over quality, turning the childcare system into a low-cost service to “look after children,” rather than a space that genuinely supports children’s holistic development. When parents are no longer seen as the primary caregivers, and instead treat childcare as a basic public service, the problem is no longer just whether the service meets a certain quality threshold. Instead, it becomes a question of whether society has misplaced the core responsibility for a child’s growth. When a child’s safety and wellbeing are left in the hands of whoever can offer the cheapest service, it’s sadly no surprise when tragedies occur.

After the Joshua Brown case came to light, many of the affected children’s parents expressed deep shock and guilt. Some admitted that it had never even occurred to them that their child might experience such horror in a center supposedly built for safety. But the reality is that young children cannot clearly articulate their experiences or feelings, as they rely on parents to actively observe, listen, and guide them. For example, parents can ask at pick-up time: “Who did you play with today? What activities did your teacher do with you? Do you like your teacher?” These seemingly simple conversations not only promote parent-child bonding, but can help detect unusual behavior or emotional changes. If a child shows signs of resisting school, anxiety, sadness, or physical discomfort, parents must stay alert and consider whether something inappropriate may have occurred.

In addition, parents should be proactive in engaging with the childcare center, such as attending parent meetings, reviewing quality assessments, monitoring staff turnover, and building open communication with caregivers. When parents raise their awareness and level of involvement, it creates pressure and oversight on institutions as well, driving broader improvements in the system.

Of course, the burden of responsibility cannot rest solely on parents. A sound system and robust oversight remain essential. But in a context where gaps still exist and resources remain tight, parents are often the last line of defense for protecting their children. If society continues to outsource caregiving responsibilities entirely to a marketized, privatized system without appropriate checks, accountability, or risk mitigation, we will only continue to see tragedies like this repeated.

Post Views: 836

Features

Walking with the Solitary (1): The Lonely People

Published

6 days ago

January 29, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

Raymond Chow

My New Challenge

Over the past few decades, I’ve written numerous books and articles on a wide variety of topics. However, last October, I decided to write a book entirely different from anything I had done before, titled Solitary but Not Isolated. I chose to publish it through crowdfunding. Readers interested in supporting this book can visit the following webpage to learn more and help make it a reality.

I attended a rooftop school in Hong Kong for primary education (a unique feature of Hong Kong in the 1960s: temporary classrooms built on top of apartment blocks in resettlement areas to accommodate children who had moved into the district). Resources were extremely limited. In sixth grade, the school principal gave me and seven other students the opportunity to post our writings on the bulletin board every two weeks for the whole school to read. This was my first experience of writing for a public audience.

In secondary school at Queen’s College, the school published the annual magazine The Yellow Dragon, the earliest and longest-running secondary school annual in Hong Kong. My writings were never published there, though my photos occasionally appeared in reports of school activities. At university, I volunteered as editor for a scholarly publication by the Science Society called Exploration, but after two or three years it was discontinued as no one wished to continue it.

During university, I studied mathematics, which required little essay writing—mostly problem-solving. After entering the field of education, I wrote numerous articles on Hong Kong education that were published in newspaper columns. Later, through curriculum development and teacher training in Hong Kong, I had the rare opportunity to write and publish mathematics textbooks spanning from Grade 1 to Form 7—something unprecedented in Hong Kong.

After moving to Australia, I served as editor of the Christian publication Living Monthly, and eventually founded Sameway magazine, which continues today. From the first issue, I wrote the opening column Words of Sameway, and over 21 years, I have written a total of 745 pieces—a record of my life.

Yet writing Solitary but Not Isolated is something I never anticipated doing since I first learned about autism decades ago. Publishing this book is closely connected to my work with Sameway. I can only say this is a new challenge given by God, a chance to take Sameway to a new stage.

Those Who Love Solitude

Solitary but Not Isolated tells the story of a person with autism. Based on her experiences, the Happy Hands Organization has developed a bilingual training program to help autistic individuals transition from school to the workplace. Launched this year, the program aims to support others in similar circumstances.

Most people with autism do not actively seek social interactions. When they do engage with strangers, they may appear difficult to connect with or communicate with, often leading to social neglect or isolation. For parents and family, this creates a lifelong burden. Even those who complete secondary or tertiary education, despite having professional knowledge, often cannot fully utilize their abilities at work because of incomplete social understanding and lack of basic communication skills. Consequently, they are frequently relegated to jobs that do not match their abilities or are assigned work requiring minimal interaction.

Western society’s understanding of autism began with the lifestyle demands of modern life, emphasizing early social engagement and learning in school. Families, having fewer children, often pay close attention to each child’s development and have higher expectations. Over the decades, understanding of autism has evolved—from viewing it as a mental illness to recognizing it as a deviation from typical personality development. Yet how society should assist their growth remains uncertain.

Decades ago, Western focus was on “treating” autism. Research into genetic, environmental, or physical causes has made limited progress. Interventions to change solitary behaviors are also limited—for example, providing speech therapy in childhood or occupational therapy for daily living skills offers only partial support. While societal acceptance and support for autistic individuals have greatly increased, parents feel that more is needed when their children enter adult life and the workforce.

In short, those inclined toward solitude still face a gap in having equal opportunities to thrive socially and professionally.

Understanding Society and the World

Many autistic individuals focus intensely on specific interests, with little experience in social relationships or current events. As adults, this often leads others to perceive them as unaware of society, or even “odd.” In workplaces, where collaboration is essential, they may face exclusion. Many end up in solitary work with minimal social interaction.

Among Chinese communities, first- or second-generation immigrants with autism often face compounded challenges due to limited knowledge of society. Parents, unfamiliar with Australian systems, cannot fully guide their children, and these high-ability individuals rarely integrate with society, limiting opportunities to demonstrate their potential.

In 2024, ABC launched The Assembly, a TV interview program where host Leigh Sales trained 15 autistic individuals to conduct interviews and produce the show. Participants significantly increased their understanding of society and the world, and their communication and social skills improved greatly.

Last year, Sameway had the opportunity to train a bilingual autistic new immigrant, successfully helping her become a magazine editor. Meanwhile, the Happy Hands Organization developed a workplace adaptation program for bilingual, high-functioning autistic individuals. Through four to six months of training, this program offers these often-overlooked individuals a chance to adapt and develop in Australia.

Thus, Sameway is not only an information platform supporting immigrant communities but also provides a development space and opportunities for those with special needs. Readers interested can contact our magazine or the Happy Hands Organization for details.

The Loneliness of Immigrants

Many immigrants arrive in Australia as adults. They often lack opportunities to understand society deeply and, due to work and life commitments, rarely have the time to engage fully with their new environment or develop close relationships with Australians. Consequently, most live within Chinese communities with similar backgrounds. Passive personalities or limited social skills often lead to intense feelings of loneliness.

Leaving their original home and social networks creates a sense of marginalization similar to that experienced by some autistic individuals. Many immigrants are willing to understand and engage with their new society but face personal limitations and a lack of proactive governmental support, leaving them unable to integrate fully into Australian life.

Chinese immigrants, in particular, may rely heavily on long-term Chinese social media and information platforms, further isolating them from the broader society. This social isolation significantly affects their participation and engagement in Australian life.

The goal of Sameway is to assist immigrants in integrating into Australia, fostering participation and engagement in society. We hope that with continued support, we can go further and achieve more.

Post Views: 21

Features

Walk With the Needy

Published

6 days ago

January 28, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

During the Christmas and New Year period, “Sameway” relocated though only to a spot less than 100 meters across from their original office. It was a tiring task, but we have finally settled in, allowing us to take a longer break during the holiday.

However, the world still undergoes significant changes. The President of Venezuela has been forcibly taken to New York for trial, while the new leader of Venezuela is willing to govern in line with U.S. interests. The longstanding alliance between Europe and the U.S. has become history in light of the U.S. attempt to purchase Greenland. The “Board of Peace” established by Trump requests that nations place the keeping of global peace in his personal hands, but attendees at the invitation include authoritarian dictators who have initiated wars multiple times. The generation that has grown up advocating for global integration, respect for human rights, and peaceful coexistence is now at a lost and confused. Will the world revert to a chaotic state governed by the law of the jungle, where strong countries dominate weaker ones, or can humanity choose to move forward in civilization by learning mistakes from history? We truly have no sure answer.

However, it is a time where the rise of Trump and the increasing power of global far-right political forces, coupled with the internet and social media replacing traditional media as the main source of information for many people. This has led to a society overwhelmed with information and challenges in distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is equally as frightening as an era where information is blocked, preventing access to necessary knowledge.

In Australia, as a multicultural country, immigrants face significant difficulties in obtaining lifestyle information through mainstream media. I believe that to build Australia as a harmonious and cohesive society, the government must invest substantial resources to assist immigrant communities to establish high-quality and credible multicultural media, and to accelerate the integration of first-generation immigrants into society, allowing them to become a driving force in social development.

In the past year, we have strengthened the current affairs information provided on our website. In the coming year, we will focus on enhancing our information services for the Chinese community through our broadcasts and magazine publications. I hope you can support us in achieving the goal of promoting the development of the Chinese immigrant community.

Starting this year, in line with the REJOICE’s initiative for bilingual new immigrants with autism, I will be writing a brand-new column to explore this topic with the community as they navigate With the NDIS program. I hope this innovative program by the REJOICE will receive your support for promotion and development within the community.

Additionally, after three years of training aimed at encouraging seniors to use social platforms to expand their community engagement, we will take a further step this year by launching training courses to assist seniors in using artificial intelligence. Our goal is to help Chinese seniors in Australia stay up-to-date and enjoy a higher quality of life brought about by AI.

In the new year, let us work together to build a stronger local Chinese community.

Post Views: 30

Features

Entering Trump 2.0’s New World

Published

6 days ago

January 28, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

Since January 20, 2025, when Trump assumed the U.S. presidency once again, domestic issues in America have been frequent and complex, but the world cannot deny that his foreign policy has reshaped the global political landscape, ushering in a new era.

Over the past year, Trump has been extremely proactive in foreign affairs—from Greenland to Venezuela—demonstrating relentless ambition to expand U.S. influence abroad, even amid controversy and the risk of destabilizing other nations.

Prelude to 2025

Let’s briefly review Trump’s major foreign policy actions in 2025.

First, his involvement in the Gaza Strip cannot be overlooked. In February 2025, he publicly stated that the U.S. would play a more active, even leading, role in the region, supporting Israel’s security needs, including strengthening border defense and intelligence sharing. He also attempted to broker ceasefire talks in the U.S.’s name, coordinating Egypt, Qatar, and other countries as intermediaries. By October, Trump personally attended a multilateral meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh, pushing for a ceasefire agreement and reconstruction framework between Israel and Hamas.

While opinions on his approach were divided, with some critics arguing that direct intervention could heighten regional tensions, Trump nonetheless reaffirmed America’s influence and presence in Middle Eastern affairs.

Early in 2025, the Trump administration reviewed all foreign aid and temporarily halted military assistance to Ukraine, using it as leverage to push forward negotiations. By mid-March, following U.S.–Ukraine consultations, military and security support resumed, including air defense systems, drone technology, and financial assistance. The U.S. also advocated international sanctions against Russia, such as high-tech export restrictions and asset freezes. These actions demonstrated Trump’s support for strategic allies and further solidified U.S. influence in Europe.

While these events may seem unrelated, they set the stage for early 2026’s diplomatic developments.

The Venezuela Raid

Trump’s most notable action in January 2026 was the sudden capture (or abduction) of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

In fact, as early as December 1, 2025, Trump had called Maduro, demanding he step down. When Maduro refused, Trump publicly ramped up pressure in mid-to-late December, applying economic and military pressure—including blockades, intercepting suspicious ships, and bolstering military deployments—to isolate the Maduro government. He even hinted that further U.S. action might follow if Maduro continued to resist, signaling a preemptive warning.

The result: U.S. forces launched a large-scale operation codenamed “Absolute Determination”, storming Caracas, capturing Maduro and his wife, and transporting them to New York for trial. The justification cited Maduro and his inner circle’s involvement in drug trafficking and terrorism, including conspiracies to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. At the same time, Maduro’s government had close ties with China and Russia, who provided military and economic support, posing a threat to U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The operation was also seen as a move to block rival powers from gaining leverage in Venezuela. More importantly, given Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, Trump clearly aimed to reassert U.S. dominance in the hemisphere and secure economic benefits. For many Americans, the raid showcased U.S. military might, boosting Trump’s prestige and approval. True to form, Trump paid little attention to criticism, focusing instead on praise, and was visibly self-satisfied.

International reactions were strong. China and Russia immediately condemned the U.S. action, calling it a severe violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. Iran and other nations with tense U.S. relations also criticized the operation as unilateralism under the guise of anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts, destabilizing the region.

European responses were mixed. Some EU countries long critical of Maduro still expressed reservations about the U.S. bypassing international authorization for direct military action, emphasizing that even dealing with authoritarian regimes should follow international mechanisms. This tension revealed the strain Trump’s style places on traditional allies.

In Latin America, reactions were split: anti-Maduro governments and Venezuelan opposition privately supported the move as a chance to break political deadlock, while others feared overt U.S. military intervention might revive Cold War-era “Monroe Doctrine” fears, worsening regional security.

Currently, former Vice President Rodríguez serves as interim president of Venezuela, cooperating with the U.S. while maintaining loyalty to the domestic ruling class, keeping the country relatively stable. For Trump, the goal of preventing other powers from gaining influence in the Americas and securing economic gains was achieved. Many Americans saw the raid as a demonstration of military strength, reinforcing Trump’s image as a decisive leader.

Trump’s Greenland Gambit

Since 2025, Trump has repeatedly brought Greenland into the spotlight, making it one of the most challenging and controversial topics of his second term.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, is under Danish sovereignty but enjoys local autonomy. Its location between North America and Europe along the Arctic shipping route has made it strategically valuable. Previously overlooked due to extreme cold, climate change and melting ice have expanded Arctic navigation, increasing Greenland’s military and technological importance. The island also contains vast deposits of rare earth and critical minerals, essential for modern technology and defense systems.

Trump’s assertive approach clearly aimed to maximize U.S. influence over Greenland. In 2025, he publicly expressed interest in buying Greenland and urged negotiations to secure it, even hinting at military options. This escalated tensions with Denmark and Europe.

European reactions were unanimous: Greenlandic leaders stated the island is “not for sale”, and massive protests erupted in Greenland and Denmark. The UK prime minister warned Trump that high tariffs or aggression would be a grave mistake, while EU countries—including Denmark, France, Germany, and the UK—supported Danish sovereignty. Even European far-right parties, traditionally aligned with Trump, criticized his Greenland strategy as overt aggression, causing internal rifts.

At the 2026 Davos World Economic Forum, Trump and NATO Secretary-General Rutte reached a “preliminary framework” focusing on Arctic security cooperation rather than territorial control. Trump framed it as safeguarding U.S. military bases and economic interests, while Denmark retained final authority. However, Greenland’s government stressed it was not fully involved in negotiations, highlighting an ongoing tension. Analysts debate whether this is a tactical retreat or pragmatic compromise.

Even with the temporary easing of tensions, U.S.–Europe trust has been strained, showing how far-reaching Trump’s assertive diplomacy has become.

Iran Unrest and U.S. Pressure

From late December 2025, Iran experienced nationwide protests, initially triggered by economic collapse, currency devaluation, and skyrocketing living costs, evolving into broad dissatisfaction with the regime. The government’s harsh crackdown led to casualties and arrests on a scale unseen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The U.S., which maintains heavy sanctions against Iran citing terrorism sponsorship and nuclear/military threats, seized this moment to intervene. Trump publicly announced deploying a fleet—including aircraft carriers and missile destroyers—to the Persian Gulf to deter further escalation. He emphasized a preference for avoiding force but warned of potential military action if the regime continued violent repression.

Trump also communicated with Iranian protesters via public statements and social media, encouraging demonstrations and denouncing government violence. He canceled all official diplomatic talks until Tehran ceased the crackdown. While some protesters hoped for U.S. support, the absence of direct action led to frustration and feelings of abandonment.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard leaders warned that any U.S. strike would be considered a full-scale war. Protests and anti-U.S. imagery reflected strong resistance. Intelligence reports indicating a temporary halt in state violence led Trump to consider pausing military actions while closely monitoring the situation, balancing threats with cautious observation.

Trump’s strategy combined military presence and public warnings to pressure Tehran, deter large-scale killings, and strengthen U.S. influence in the Middle East. Yet this high-risk approach also raised the possibility of miscalculations, where tensions could escalate unintentionally, making the U.S. a target for criticism and resistance.

The “Board of Peace”

Traditionally, the U.S. has been seen as the global big brother. But with China’s growing influence and global economic support programs, U.S. presidents often feel impatient with Beijing’s increasing UN sway. Trump, ambitious and assertive, sought to take matters further.

At the 2026 Davos Forum, he launched the “Board of Peace”, initially proposed to address Gaza peace but now expanded to serve as a broader global conflict mediation mechanism. The initiative leverages U.S. influence to create an alternative diplomatic platform and invites multiple countries to participate.

However, critics question whether it is more for show than genuine peacekeeping. The EU’s concern lies less with the stated goals and more with the lack of clarity: the legal status, decision-making process, funding, and international law accountability remain unspecified. Unlike multilateral bodies like the UN or OSCE, this U.S.-backed, president-driven mechanism risks becoming a coercive tool rather than a genuine mediator.

The EU fears it could undermine Europe’s long-standing role in Middle East diplomacy, forcing it from rule-maker to follower. China was excluded, reflecting Trump’s view of Beijing as a competitor, not a partner. The Board aims to present participation as a political statement, effectively creating a U.S.-led bloc in global conflict mediation.

For Australia, the Board is a hot potato. Prime Minister Albanese received an invitation but has not confirmed participation. Several NATO and EU countries have declined, while Canada was disinvited over disagreements on China policy. Thirty-plus leaders who accepted include war actors like Putin and Israel’s Netanyahu. How they could effectively promote peace remains questionable, and handling the invitation diplomatically will test Albanese’s political skill.

Trump’s Diplomatic Logic

Across Gaza, Ukraine, Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, and the Board of Peace, Trump’s strategy is consistent: proactive engagement, pressure, disruption of norms, and forcing allies and adversaries to recalculate. He eschews slow multilateral negotiations in favor of military, economic, and media leverage, coupled with highly personalized decision-making, shifting power quickly at the negotiating table.

To Trump, diplomacy is a continuous game of strategy, not merely maintaining order. He pushes situations to the edge, then retreats strategically to gain advantage. While controversial and eroding trust among allies, it successfully recenters U.S. influence.

Crucially, Trump applies pressure not only to adversaries but to allies, forcing them to demonstrate loyalty or strategic value. This increases U.S. bargaining leverage but consumes trust capital, making international relations more transactional and short-term, and setting the stage for future friction.

Costs and Risks of Assertive Diplomacy

Reliance on pressure and uncertainty may yield short-term results but risks long-term instability. Highly personalized, low-institutional approaches erode trust in rules, procedures, and multilateral cooperation. Misjudgments are more likely in opaque, high-stakes situations. Allies and adversaries may misread threats, escalating conflict even without provocation.

Trump is reshaping U.S. diplomacy from guardian of order to rewriter of order, providing tactical flexibility but weakening institutional credibility. Whether the U.S. can balance assertive pressure with sustained trust will determine its long-term global leadership.

Ultimately, Trump’s strategy may open new strategic space for the U.S. or provoke deeper backlash and confrontation. One thing is certain: the international stage in 2026 is no longer the old world, and Trump is the key variable driving this structural transformation.