On January 22, 2026, in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. President Trump signed documents alongside representatives from over ten countries and regions, initiating the so-called "Peace Committee." Notably absent from the signatories were representatives from Palestine and Israel. Previously, Trump stated in an interview that the "Peace Committee" would first address the Gaza issue before extending its focus to "other conflicts." Some viewpoints suggest that the U.S. aims to create a parallel "white moonlight version of the United Nations," which could further undermine the authority and operational mechanisms of existing international organizations. Despite Trump previously inviting over 60 countries to become founding members of the Peace Committee, only 26 countries ultimately became initial members by January 22: the United States, Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Among these, Israel had repeatedly questioned whether the Peace Committee should include countries like Turkey and even doubted the necessity of the committee itself, yet it ultimately joined. Conversely, the representative from Belarus, which had reiterated its intention to join, was notably absent from the signing ceremony. Seven countries received invitations but explicitly refused to join: France, Italy, Slovenia, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. These industrialized European powers shared a common reason for refusal: opposition to Trump using the Peace Committee as a tool to advance his unilateralist policies. However, among these nations, some objected to the role the U.S. has played in Gaza peace efforts, while others feared the Peace Committee might usurp the role of the United Nations. A total of 29 countries and organizations received explicit invitations but have remained non-committal. Their reasons for missing the "first wave" vary widely. For instance, Canada firmly opposes Trump's plan to charge each country a $1 billion "entry fee," while many other countries seek clarification on the actual purpose of this "Peace Committee"—both the functions of "peace" and the "committee" remain ambiguous to date. On the 22nd, joining Trump on the Davos stage were founding board members, including Argentine President Javier Milei and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, alongside representatives from numerous countries such as Bahrain, Morocco, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan. World leaders signed documents alongside Trump at a table. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt stated that these documents brought the committee's charter "fully into effect," establishing it as a "formal international organization." Observers noted that although Trump claimed at the event that "almost every country wants to join... these are just the ones that happen to be here," and Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to downplay the embarrassment of an "incompletely filled venue" by stating that "other countries also want to join, but they are either not in Davos or need to complete some procedures to finalize their membership," the reality is that few major or powerful nations have joined. From the European Union, only Hungary and Bulgaria were present to sign. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who had delivered a speech in the same venue just minutes before the signing ceremony, deliberately left before it began. Describing the Peace Committee's debut as "hastily assembled" is no exaggeration. The Peace Committee was initially proposed by Trump in September 2025 under the banner of "coordinating the needs for the second phase of Gaza reconstruction," initiating the establishment of an organization named the "Peace Committee." On November 17, 2025, Trump quietly altered the definition and essence of the Peace Committee, barely mentioning "Gaza reconstruction," and the committee seemingly became the prototype for what Trump described as a "replacement United Nations (UN)." On January 15, 2026, Trump further defined the "Peace Committee," astonishing almost everyone. A draft charter indicated the committee's broader mandate, aiming to "ensure lasting peace in areas affected by conflict or threatened by conflict." This grand vision alarmed many U.S. partners, who feared the committee might attempt to compete with or even undermine the United Nations. According to the January 15 plan, this Peace Committee is an institution with vaguely defined functions and a peculiar organizational structure. The organization establishes a lifelong "natural Chairman," namely Trump himself; membership admission is solely determined by Trump, with all charters and daily management decided privately by the Chairman. The Peace Committee's decision-making mechanism is straightforwardly Trump's autocratic rule; the "Chairman Trump" can pass resolutions or initiatives on behalf of the committee without consulting it and holds a lifetime position. Although there is a distinction between "initial members" and later members, the former are not granted clear privileges. Beneath "Chairman Trump" sits a "Peace Executive Committee" composed of eight "international dignitaries," all nominated solely by "Chairman Trump," including six Americans and two non-Americans (the Gaza issue senior representative, Bulgarian Nickolay Mladenov, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair), the latter also having longstanding friendly ties with Trump. This constitutes a cabinet with a distinctly "imperial household" style. There is also what appears to be a "Gaza Executive Committee" specifically tasked with matters related to the Gaza peace plan, whose list, announced on the 17th, overlaps significantly with the "Peace Executive Committee." Additionally, there is a functionally named body of 15 Palestinian technocrats, the specific name of which is unknown. Seemingly aware that its invitation letters made no mention of the Gaza peace process, Trump refocused the "keywords" on Gaza peace and reconstruction during the inauguration ceremony and attempted to alleviate some concerns by emphasizing that the organization would "cooperate with many other organizations, including the United Nations." However, despite the Trump administration's efforts to persuade countries that the committee would complement rather than replace the UN, these concerns persist. Many are skeptical about the committee's prospects, suggesting that neither its "low goal" of "leading the second phase of Gaza peace" nor its "high goal" of constructing a "UN alternative" appears promising. The key issue with the "low goal" is that almost no country fully endorses the U.S. version of the "second phase Gaza peace roadmap." Hamas effectively disagrees with disarmament, and Israel, while reluctantly agreeing to form such a committee, does not intend to abandon its goals of annexing Gaza and eliminating Hamas. Following the setbacks of the first phase, the United Nations and the vast majority of other countries do not wish to continue a second phase of the peace process heavily constrained by the U.S. and Israel, which marginalizes the UN, other international agencies, and neighboring nations. Furthermore, the war has generated 68 million tons of rubble in Gaza; the World Bank conservatively estimates that $70 billion from the international community is needed. However, the Peace Committee has no funds and does not intend to provide money, as this contradicts Trump's fundamental principle of "not spending a penny overseas on matters unrelated to the U.S." The Peace Committee makes no mention of funding the second phase of the Gaza peace process; on the contrary, it plans to take $1 billion from each member state to "handle major affairs." Moreover, in the current Gaza situation, trust among relevant parties is almost zero, security conditions are worrying, and without substantial international peacekeeping forces, progress is nearly impossible. Under such circumstances, isn't the failure of the "low goal" inevitable? As for the "high goal" of replacing the United Nations, it is destined to fail, much as Trump himself has already begun to backtrack. Various signs indicate that the "Peace Committee" is far from being a "passionate decision" or "momentary impulse," as some observers speculate, or merely a "mutation aimed at rebuilding Gaza's administrative structures," as it might superficially appear. In fact, long before becoming president, Trump repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the UN charging high membership fees without granting the U.S. special privileges, envisioning a "new United Nations" where "all privileges belong to the United States, and all U.S. privileges belong to Trump." The January 15 version of the Peace Committee is precisely such a Trump-style "United Nations." Clearly, such a "grand objective" faces bleak prospects against the backdrop of global aversion to Trump's "Trump Doctrine" and Trump himself being overextended with too many initiatives. As mentioned, very few major and industrialized countries agreed to become founding members. Those that succumbed to Trump's pressure can largely be categorized into three types: those too weak to resist; those needing favors from the U.S. or Trump; and those hoping to achieve some form of利益交换 (yìlì jiāohuàn, interest exchange) with the U.S. However, Trump's tendency to "favor the rich and disdain the poor" excludes many smaller, poorer countries that might otherwise have some willingness to join. No Sub-Saharan African countries, which he holds in lowest regard, received invitations. This list of over 60 invited countries has been mockingly called a "telecom fraud target list"—"call them first to try your luck, maybe they'll pay"—a crude saying that holds some truth. Wealthy, powerful nations are unwilling to fund a "mic hog" like Trump, while poor, small nations are looked down upon by him, making the Peace Committee's future highly uncertain. It is conceivable that upon encountering setbacks, Trump will likely temporarily stand down and open another venture, leaving the "Peace Committee" issue to be discussed another day. In fact, his hesitant remarks on the 22nd, the day the Peace Committee was "launched," indicate that this scenario has already begun.