美國總統川普於1月20日在白宮舉行的一場記者會上，拋出一項極具爭議性的構想，宣布成立一個名為「和平委員會」（Peace Committee）的全新國際機制，並直言該組織在未來「有可能取代聯合國的角色」。川普同時表示，他本人將擔任該委員會的「終身主席」，而其他成員的任期則設定為三年，首要任務將集中處理當前最棘手的國際衝突之一——加沙戰爭。

川普在談話中強調，他並未主張立即解散聯合國，甚至表示「聯合國應該繼續存在」，但他同時批評聯合國在近年多場重大衝突中反應遲緩、效率低落，受制於官僚體系與否決權政治，無法真正發揮維護和平的功能。在他的構想中，「和平委員會」將是一個行動導向、以結果為優先的組織，不受傳統多邊體制的結構性限制，能更快速地介入衝突、施壓相關各方並主導談判。

根據川普陣營透露的資訊，截至目前，美方已向約60個國家與國際組織發出加入邀請函，涵蓋範圍相當廣泛。受邀對象不僅包括法國、德國、義大利、匈牙利等歐洲主要國家，還涵蓋澳洲、加拿大、歐盟委員會，以及多個中東關鍵國家的領導人，顯示該委員會試圖打造一個跨越西方盟友與地區強權的新型國際平台，而非僅限於美國的傳統盟友圈。

此一構想在國際社會引發高度關注，其中最受矚目的回應來自俄羅斯。俄羅斯總統普京已公開確認，確實收到川普關於加入「和平委員會」的正式邀請。更具震撼性的是，普京表示，俄方願意動用目前在美國遭到凍結的俄羅斯資產，支付加入該委員會所需的10億美元會費。這番表態被外界解讀為一種高度政治化的訊號，一方面展現俄羅斯試圖重返主導型國際舞台的意圖，另一方面也可能是在測試美國未來政府對俄資產處置與制裁政策的底線。

不過，這項「和平委員會」構想也迅速引發法律、外交與制度層面的質疑。多名國際法學者指出，任何試圖取代或架空聯合國的組織，都將面臨國際法正當性不足的問題，尤其是在安理會授權、維和行動合法性以及制裁執行力方面，短期內幾乎不可能複製聯合國的制度基礎。此外，「終身主席」的設計，也被批評為與多邊主義與民主治理精神背道而馳，可能使該委員會更像是一個以個人影響力為核心的政治平台，而非真正的國際公共機構。

整體而言，川普此舉不僅是一次外交制度的激進想像，也被視為其一貫「顛覆既有國際秩序」路線的延伸。無論該「和平委員會」最終是否能真正落地，其拋出的訊號已清楚顯示：在全球衝突頻發、傳統多邊體制信任度下降的背景下，國際秩序正面臨新一輪關於權威、合法性與主導權的激烈辯論。

U.S. President Donald Trump stirred major controversy during a White House press briefing on January 20, when he announced the creation of a new international body called the “Peace Committee,” openly suggesting that it could one day replace the United Nations. Trump stated that he himself would serve as the committee’s “chairman for life,” while other members would hold three-year terms. The committee’s first and most urgent mission, he said, would be to address the ongoing Gaza conflict.

In his remarks, Trump emphasized that he was not calling for the immediate dissolution of the United Nations and even acknowledged that “the UN should continue to exist.” However, he sharply criticized the organization for what he described as years of slow responses, bureaucratic paralysis, and excessive dependence on veto politics, arguing that it has failed to function as an effective guardian of global peace. In Trump’s vision, the Peace Committee would be an action-oriented body focused on results rather than procedure, free from the structural constraints of traditional multilateral institutions, and capable of intervening more rapidly in conflicts, applying pressure on the parties involved, and taking the lead in negotiations.

According to information released by Trump’s team, the United States has already sent invitations to join the Peace Committee to approximately 60 countries and international organizations. The list of invitees is notably broad, including major European nations such as France, Germany, Italy, and Hungary, as well as Australia, Canada, the European Commission, and several key powers in the Middle East. This suggests that the committee is intended to function as a cross-regional platform encompassing both Western allies and influential regional actors, rather than being limited to America’s traditional alliance network.

The proposal has drawn intense international attention, with Russia’s response proving particularly striking. Russian President Vladimir Putin has publicly confirmed that he received Trump’s invitation to join the Peace Committee. Even more controversially, Putin stated that Russia would be willing to pay the required US$1 billion membership fee using Russian assets currently frozen in the United States. Analysts interpret this statement as a highly political signal: on one hand, it reflects Moscow’s desire to reassert itself on a leadership-oriented global stage; on the other, it may be an attempt to test the boundaries of future U.S. policy regarding sanctions and the handling of frozen Russian assets.

At the same time, the Peace Committee concept has triggered immediate legal, diplomatic, and institutional criticism. Numerous international law scholars have pointed out that any organization attempting to replace or sideline the United Nations would face serious challenges regarding legal legitimacy, particularly in areas such as Security Council authorization, peacekeeping mandates, and the enforcement of sanctions. In the short term, they argue, it would be virtually impossible to replicate the UN’s institutional foundations. Moreover, the idea of a “chairman for life” has been widely criticized as contradicting the principles of multilateralism and democratic governance, raising concerns that the committee would function more as a personality-driven political platform than as a genuine international public institution.

Overall, Trump’s announcement is widely seen not only as a radical reimagining of global diplomatic structures, but also as a continuation of his long-standing approach of challenging and disrupting the existing international order. Regardless of whether the Peace Committee ever materializes in practice, the signal it sends is unmistakable: amid escalating global conflicts and declining confidence in traditional multilateral institutions, the international system is entering a new phase of intense debate over authority, legitimacy, and leadership.