New Zealand declines Trump’s Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ — endorses concept, steps aside

New Zealand has confirmed it will not join United States President Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace for Gaza,” but the government has stopped short of rejecting the initiative itself, instead endorsing its intent while declining participation in its current form.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon confirmed on Friday that New Zealand would not accept the invitation after considering the proposal, saying the government would not be joining the board “in its current form.”

A more detailed explanation was provided by Foreign Minister Winston Peters, who emphasised New Zealand’s recognition of US leadership on Gaza while signalling concerns about mandate, scope, and alignment with existing international frameworks.

“New Zealand recognises the leadership of the United States, in close coordination with nations from the region, on advancing peace in Gaza,” Peters said. “We see a role for the Board of Peace in Gaza, to be carried out as mandated by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803.”

However, Peters noted that several states — particularly from the Middle East — had already stepped forward to contribute to the board’s work, and that New Zealand would not add “significant further value” by participating.

“As a leading founder and longstanding supporter of the United Nations,” he added, “it is important that the Board’s work is complementary to and consistent with the UN Charter.”

The board, which would be chaired by President Trump, was proposed in draft form earlier this month and circulated to a number of world leaders, including Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Its stated aim is to provide international oversight and coordination for post-war governance and stabilisation in Gaza.

The proposal emerged shortly after the announcement of a separate 15-member Palestinian technocratic committee intended to manage Gaza’s day-to-day administration following the conflict.

Political backlash and selective outrage

The invitation sparked immediate domestic political controversy. Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins condemned the government for initially failing to rule out participation, calling the prospect of sitting on a body alongside Vladimir Putin an “absolute disgrace.” Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick formally urged Luxon to reject the invitation outright, citing concerns about legitimacy and international norms.

Notably, much of the political criticism focused on Russia’s potential involvement, despite the expected participation of other regional powers with contested human rights records, including Qatar and Turkey — neither of which drew comparable public criticism in the New Zealand debate.

While the government ultimately declined to participate, Peters’ statement carefully avoided repudiating the board itself. Instead, it affirmed that the initiative “has a role,” praised US leadership, invoked UN Security Council authority, and left the door open to future engagement.

“It is a new body,” Peters said, “and we need clarity on this, and on other questions relating to its scope, now and in the future.”

Endorsement without engagement

The resulting position places New Zealand in a familiar diplomatic posture – endorsing the objectives of an international initiative while declining to assume responsibility for its execution.

By framing its decision around questions of “added value” and institutional clarity, the government has sidestepped both the domestic political risk of association and a direct challenge to US leadership on Gaza. At the same time, it has avoided offering a substantive alternative pathway for post-war governance or peace-building in the territory.

For critics, this amounts to support without commitment — a rhetorical alignment with peace efforts absent meaningful engagement. For supporters, it reflects a cautious, process-driven foreign policy grounded in multilateralism and UN legitimacy.

Either way, New Zealand’s decision underscores the widening gap between moral positioning and practical involvement as the international community grapples with Gaza’s future.

For now, as Peters concluded, New Zealand will remain on the sidelines — “monitoring developments.”