French President Emmanuel Macron has declined an invitation from former U.S. President Donald Trump to join a U.S.-led “peace committee” designed to oversee postwar governance in the Gaza Strip, citing concerns the body would exceed its mandate and undermine the United Nations.
Macron’s office said the refusal, announced on January 19, stems from worries that the committee’s proposed charter grants the chair — Trump — unusually broad powers that go beyond managing Gaza’s transition and encroach on the UN’s institutional turf. The French statement warned that the committee’s remit “extends beyond the Gaza framework” and raises “serious questions” about the principles and structures of the United Nations.
French foreign minister Barro reinforced that critique in a speech in Paris, highlighting language in the draft charter that authorises action “in Gaza and other areas” and concentrates decision-making authority in the chair. According to the reported draft, the chair would have the power to approve membership, select a successor, and veto decisions by a majority of members — mechanisms that Paris said are at odds with the UN Charter.
The committee idea was floated in the Trump administration’s 20-point plan published in September, which described a role for an oversight body in Gaza’s post-conflict transition, with Trump named as chair. Trump announced the panel’s formation on January 15. But publication of a draft charter by an Israeli outlet on January 18 alarmed some observers by omitting explicit reference to Gaza and by arguing that “sustainable peace requires practical judgments, commonsense solutions and the courage to abandon methods and institutions that have failed too many times.”
That language, critics say, reads as an implicit challenge to the UN’s monopoly over peacekeeping and post-conflict governance. Several governments — including Argentina, Canada, Egypt, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — reportedly received invitations and the draft charter. Responses have been mixed: Egypt and Turkey have not yet indicated their positions, Saudi Arabia said it is reviewing the draft internally, and Canada’s prime minister expressed qualified interest but lingering doubts about how the committee would operate.
European concern reflects a wider apprehension about efforts to create parallel international institutions or fora that could dilute multilateral decision-making. For European capitals, the question is not only legal or procedural but practical: reconstruction, aid distribution and the protection of civilians in Gaza require legitimacy, access and coordination — functions the UN has, for better or worse, historically fulfilled.
Whether the committee becomes a vehicle for constructive international engagement or a rival hub for U.S.-led diplomacy depends on buy-in from key states and international organisations. Macron’s public refusal signals that at least some Western partners view the proposal as overreaching; without broad legitimacy, the committee risks entrenching geopolitical rivalries rather than delivering stable governance or reconstruction on the ground.
Beyond immediate institutional disputes, the episode underscores a political problem: the domestic stature and foreign-policy posture of its proposed chair. Longstanding criticism of the UN by Trump and his allies, combined with the committee’s draft language, has prompted concern that the initiative could be used to sidestep multilateral constraints and favour outcomes aligned with particular patrons rather than agreed international norms.
For Gaza’s inhabitants, the institutional tussle matters because the debate shapes who will control reconstruction funds, set governance arrangements, and adjudicate competing claims of authority. If countries and organisations do not cohere around a single framework, reconstruction and long-term stabilisation could be delayed or fragmented, worsening humanitarian and security risks.