Trump's "Peace Council" Initiative Meets Cold Reception: Major Powers Refuse to Participate and Reaffirm Support for UN

On January 22, at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Charter of the Peace Council. Originally conceived as a small group of leaders to oversee future plans for Gaza, the charter quickly raised international alarm. It stipulates that Trump will serve as the council's chair until his resignation and holds veto power over the council's actions and membership. Within just one week, four permanent members of the UN Security Council—China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—along with major economies such as Japan and Germany, either refused or did not commit to joining. At least nine European countries, including New Zealand, Spain, and Slovenia, publicly declined the invitation. This U.S.-led initiative, far from establishing an alternative global security framework, unexpectedly prompted many nations to reaffirm their support for the 81-year-old United Nations and its Security Council.

The Evolution of the Initiative and Its Core Controversies

The Trump administration initially marketed the Peace Council as an exclusive platform to address the Gaza crisis. Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to reassure allies during a congressional hearing on January 21, emphasizing that it was not a substitute for the United Nations and that the council's current focus was limited to the follow-up phases of the Gaza ceasefire plan. However, the charter text and Trump's own remarks paint a starkly different picture.

The charter signed in Davos defines the council as an international organization aimed at promoting stability in conflict-affected or threatened regions, restoring reliable and legitimate governance, and ensuring lasting peace. It sharply criticizes the United Nations, emphasizing the need for a more flexible and effective international institution for peacebuilding, and states that lasting peace requires the courage to abandon repeatedly failing institutions. More critically, the charter grants Trump himself nearly permanent personal authority: as founding chairman, his term lasts until resignation; he holds the power to veto any council actions and decide on new members. Richard Gowan, a UN expert at the International Crisis Group, analyzes that it is precisely the U.S. introduction of this overly ambitious charter that has turned the entire initiative into a liability. Countries that initially signed to address the Gaza issue see the council becoming a Trump fan club, which holds no appeal.

Trump's public statements have heightened external doubts. He not only promotes the idea that the council has a broader international mandate to mediate global conflicts but even hints that it might replace the United Nations. This open challenge to the post-World War II international order centered around the United Nations touches a red line for many countries. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres responded clearly on January 23: In my view, the fundamental responsibility for maintaining international peace and security lies with the United Nations, with the Security Council. Only the Security Council can adopt decisions that are binding on all members, and no other institution or alliance can legally require all member states to comply with decisions regarding peace and security.

Reactions and Strategic Considerations of Major Countries

The rejection by major powers is not an isolated incident, but rather a collective response based on clear strategic calculations. The positions of the other four permanent members of the Security Council are representative. French President Emmanuel Macron pointed out last week that the council goes beyond the framework of Gaza and raises serious issues, particularly concerning the principles and structure of the United Nations, which are unshakable. After meeting with Guterres in London, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer reaffirmed the United Kingdom's enduring support for the United Nations and the international rules-based system, emphasizing the UN's crucial role in addressing global issues, after which the UK formally declined to join. At the Security Council meeting on January 26, China's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Fu Cong, without directly naming it, clearly pointed to the Peace Council: we should not selectively fulfill our commitments to the United Nations, nor should we create alternative mechanisms that bypass the UN. Russia has consistently refrained from commenting.

The reasons for refusal from other Western allies are equally specific. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declined to join because the council excluded the Palestinian Authority and operated outside the United Nations framework. New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon confirmed on January 24 that he would not participate, stating that more clarification about its intentions was needed. Countries such as Norway, Sweden, and Italy also avoided involvement. Even Canada, which traditionally follows U.S. foreign policy closely, had its invitation to Prime Minister Mark Carney withdrawn by Trump for unspecified reasons.

Analysts point out that there are several common considerations behind these rejections. First is the preservation of the statutory authority of the United Nations Security Council and the international system based on the UN Charter, which serves as the cornerstone of the post-war international order. Any undermining of this could trigger unpredictable chain reactions. Second is the distrust of Trump's personalized diplomatic style and the inconsistency of his policies. When the council's initiative was proposed, it coincided with Trump's threat to take over Greenland, the autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, and to punish some resistant European countries. This provoked strong rebuttals from nations like Canada and Denmark, who argued that his demands threatened one of the West's most stable alliances. Although Trump later dramatically changed his stance on Greenland, the resulting trust deficit had already been created. Third is the concern that this mechanism would overlap or even conflict with the existing UN framework, causing confusion rather than serving as an effective supplement.

Participant Country Map and Geopolitical Motivations

According to the list of the first 26 founding members released on January 28 by Dylan Johnson, Special Assistant to Trump, the participating countries show distinct regional characteristics. They primarily come from the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and some Eastern European countries, including Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Egypt, El Salvador, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

Eight major Muslim countries—Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, and the UAE—issued a joint statement after agreeing to join, expressing support for their mission in Gaza and the advancement of Palestinian statehood, but the statement made no mention of Trump’s global peace plan. Richard Gowan suggests that their focus may be a way to establish a foothold in early discussions on Gaza, as Trump’s ceasefire plan has already faced several setbacks. For many Middle Eastern countries, joining a U.S.-led mechanism that claims to focus on Gaza is a pragmatic attempt to influence post-war arrangements and safeguard their own interests, despite their reservations about Trump’s broader blueprint.

This list also reflects the utter failure of the initiative to attract global powers and developed economies. Not a single member of the G7 (except the United States) has joined, and only some members of the BRICS are participating. Louis Charbonneau, the UN Director at Human Rights Watch, was blunt: It is hardly surprising that almost no government is willing to join Trump's "copycat United Nations." It currently looks more like a "pay-to-play" club for human rights abusers and war crimes suspects than a serious international organization.

Implications for the United Nations System and the Future International Order

The lukewarm reception to Trump's Peace Council initiative has not posed a substantial threat to the United Nations in the short term; instead, it has acted like a reverse catalyst. It has prompted major powers—whether traditional U.S. allies or strategic competitors—to publicly reaffirm their collective commitment to the central role of the United Nations. In Security Council meetings, public speeches, and closed-door diplomacy, nations have jointly resisted Trump's latest attempt to overturn the post-war international order.

However, this incident has sharply exposed the effectiveness dilemmas and credibility challenges faced by the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, in addressing thorny issues such as the Gaza crisis. Although Rubio's criticism that the UN is almost useless in Gaza beyond providing food aid appears biased, it reflects, to some extent, the disappointment of parts of the international community with the UN's operational capabilities. This is precisely the realistic context in which eight Middle Eastern countries are willing to experiment with new mechanisms.

From a deeper perspective, this turmoil reflects a tension within the current international order: on one hand, the multilateral system centered around the United Nations, though imperfect, remains the preferred choice for the vast majority of countries due to its universality, legitimacy, and relatively stable procedures; on the other hand, major powers, particularly the United States, consistently harbor the impulse to establish more flexible and controllable mini-lateral or club-style mechanisms on specific issues. The key lies in whether such alternative mechanisms serve as supplements to the United Nations or aim to weaken or even replace it.

Currently, the Peace Council has failed to pass the legitimacy test of the international community due to its overly strong personal influence, ambiguous global ambitions, and overt exclusionary stance toward the United Nations. It has failed to attract key nations that form the pillars of global power, and its influence is likely to be confined to specific regional issues. As Gowan concluded: I still do not believe this poses a genuine long-term threat to the United Nations.

But this page is not completely turned. In the future, if there is a breakthrough in the situation in Gaza, or if the council strictly limits its agenda to mediating specific regional conflicts and demonstrates tangible results, it is not impossible that the stance of some fence-sitting countries (such as India) may change. However, as long as the clause in its charter granting Donald Trump personal lifelong veto power remains unchanged, its potential as a serious, credible, and sustainable international peace and security institution is extremely limited. The ultimate legacy of this diplomatic game may not be the birth of a new global arbitrator, but rather another demonstration of how difficult it is to establish a truly universally representative, alternative global security governance architecture to the United Nations in today's divided world. The results of countries voting with their feet indicate that repairing the existing house, though troublesome, still seems to be a more realistic choice than starting from scratch.