China Rebukes Trump’s Davos Proposal, Underscoring a Shifting Global Order

When China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a brief statement this week reaffirming its commitment to “the international system with the United Nations at its core,” the language appeared routine — even bland. But to diplomats, analysts, and global investors, the message landed with unmistakable force.

The statement came just days after former President Donald J. Trump, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, unveiled what he called a new “Board of Peace,” a proposed international body that he said would oversee postwar reconstruction in Gaza and address future global conflicts. Mr. Trump described the board as more effective than the United Nations and invited major powers — including China and Russia — to participate.

China declined. And it did so publicly.

The rejection was not merely procedural. It amounted to a pointed rebuke of the premise behind Mr. Trump’s proposal: that the United States, acting outside established multilateral institutions, could still convene and define the architecture of global governance.

A Proposal Met With Silence — and Absence

According to U.S. officials involved in the Davos meetings, as many as two dozen countries initially expressed interest in the Board of Peace. But when a signing ceremony was held later in the week, the roster of participating states told a more complicated story.

China was absent. So was Russia, despite earlier indications of interest. Several major U.S. allies — including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan — either declined to participate or sent no representatives. India did not respond publicly.

Those who did attend included a group of states with limited diplomatic leverage or strong bilateral dependencies on Washington, including Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Hungary, Belarus, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan and several Central Asian and Caucasus nations.

“This is not what global convening power looks like,” said Richard Haass, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a post on X. “Legitimacy matters as much as participation.”

China’s Message, Decoded

China’s official response avoided direct criticism of Mr. Trump. Instead, it emphasized principles: multilateralism, international law, sovereign equality and the authority of the U.N. Charter.

“China always practices true multilateralism,” the statement read, adding that Beijing would remain committed to “the international order based on international law and the basic norms governing international relations.”

To Western diplomats and China watchers, the meaning was clear.

“What Beijing is saying is: we already have a system, and it’s not for sale,” said Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center. “This is a rejection not just of Trump’s proposal, but of transactional governance as a concept.”

Competing Visions of Global Power

The timing of China’s refusal was notable. Just months earlier, President Xi Jinping had promoted what Beijing calls the Global Governance Initiative, or G.G.I., at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The framework emphasizes U.N.-centered multilateralism, noninterference and development-led cooperation — principles that appeal strongly to countries in the Global South.

Chinese officials say more than 140 countries and international organizations have expressed support for elements of the initiative.

In contrast, Mr. Trump’s proposal — according to draft documents circulated at Davos and discussed widely on social media — would allow countries to secure permanent seats on the Board of Peace through substantial financial contributions, with lower-tier participation offered on a temporary basis.

Critics argue that such a structure risks hollowing out existing international institutions by redirecting attention, resources and legitimacy toward ad hoc bodies dominated by wealth and power.

“You don’t need to abolish the United Nations to weaken it,” one European diplomat wrote on Threads. “You just need to make it irrelevant.”

Europe Stays Away

Perhaps most striking was the response from America’s traditional allies. European officials, speaking privately, said the proposal raised concerns about transparency, legal authority and strategic intent.

“There was no appetite to legitimize a parallel system,” said a senior E.U. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “Especially one so closely identified with a single political figure.”

Canada’s absence was particularly conspicuous after reports that Ottawa was initially invited and later excluded following public disagreements with Mr. Trump. The episode fueled criticism on U.S. political podcasts and TikTok, where the board was increasingly portrayed as personalized diplomacy rather than institutional leadership.

A Broader Decline in U.S. Convening Power

The episode has become a flashpoint in a wider debate over America’s role in the world. While the United States remains the dominant military power and a central player in global finance, its ability to shape international norms through persuasion and legitimacy has eroded, analysts say.

“Power today is about who defines the rules, not just who enforces them,” said Fareed Zakaria in a CNN segment. “And on that front, the U.S. is no longer uncontested.”

China, meanwhile, has invested heavily in alternative institutions: the expanded BRICS grouping, which now represents nearly half the world’s population; the New Development Bank; and regional development mechanisms tied to infrastructure and trade.

“These aren’t symbolic projects,” said Eswar Prasad, a former I.M.F. economist. “They are functional, and they are attractive to countries that feel marginalized by Western-led systems.”

What Comes Next

Whether Mr. Trump’s Board of Peace gains traction remains uncertain. Supporters argue that existing institutions are too slow and politicized to respond to modern crises. Critics counter that bypassing them accelerates fragmentation.

What is clear is that China’s response has sharpened the contrast between two visions of global order: one rooted in transactional power and flexible coalitions, the other in formal multilateralism and institutional continuity.

“Beijing didn’t just say no,” said Jessica Chen Weiss, a professor at Johns Hopkins. “It said: this is not how legitimacy is built anymore.”

As geopolitical competition intensifies, moments like this — quiet refusals, carefully worded statements, conspicuous absences — may matter as much as summits and treaties. They signal where influence lies, and where it no longer does.

And judging by who stayed away from Davos this week, the world is already recalibrating.