Chinese state broadcaster CCTV reported that the administration of former US president Donald Trump has sent invitations to roughly 60 countries and international organizations to join a newly declared Gaza "peace committee." The invitation list reportedly includes several leading European democracies — France, Germany and Italy — as well as Hungary, Australia, Canada, the European Commission and major Middle East states. Most recipients have responded cautiously; Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán is the only leader publicly to have accepted.
A draft of the committee’s constitution circulating with the invitations designates Trump as "lifetime chairman" and describes an initial mandate to address the Gaza conflict, with an intention to expand into other disputes thereafter. Membership terms are capped at three years, but the draft offers permanent membership in return for a payment of $1 billion to fund the body’s activities. The arrangement, as described, would create a funded, self‑standing body driven by a single dominant figure rather than by established multilateral institutions.
Western diplomats quoted in the Chinese report reacted with alarm, describing the initiative as a "Trump version of the United Nations" that would flout the UN Charter’s core principles and risk undermining the UN’s role in international peace and security. Their concern reflects both legal and political unease: a parallel forum lacking UN authorization could compete with Security Council jurisdiction and complicate diplomatic efforts already fragile in Gaza and the wider region.
The proposal is significant because it touches on the architecture of global governance. Creating an ad hoc forum that relies on private funding to purchase permanent status and places a former head of state in lifelong leadership would upend norms about impartial institution‑building and collective accountability. It echoes past efforts, such as the 2003 "coalition of the willing," to bypass UN mechanisms but goes further by institutionalizing a new body with explicit commercial routes to entrenched influence.
Practical questions remain. Without broad endorsement from major powers and UN organs the committee will likely struggle for legitimacy and operational reach; yet the acceptance by Hungary signals a possible constituency among leaders willing to prioritise transactional ties with Trump over multilateral cohesion. How many governments ultimately join — and whether Israel, Palestinian representatives or regional powers will engage with the body — will determine whether it becomes an influential parallel forum or a short‑lived symbolic project.