New Zealand Rejects Trump's Gaza Peace Board, Joining Western Allies in Snub
New Zealand Rejects Trump's Gaza Peace Board Invitation

New Zealand Declines Trump's Gaza Peace Board Invitation Amid Western Caution

New Zealand has formally rejected an invitation from US President Donald Trump to join his newly established Board of Peace initiative for Gaza, joining several major Western allies in expressing caution about the project's scope and intent.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the decision on Friday, stating that the government had carefully considered the invitation but would not participate in the board "in its current form." The announcement places New Zealand alongside the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Norway, and Sweden, all of whom have either rejected the offer or avoided Mr Trump's high-profile signing ceremony at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Lack of Clarity and UN Alignment Concerns

The New Zealand government cited significant concerns about the board's true purpose and operational framework. Foreign Minister Winston Peters emphasised on social media platform X that any peace initiative must be "complementary to and consistent" with the United Nations Charter, particularly regarding Gaza.

"It is a new body, and we need clarity on this, and on other questions relating to its scope, now and in the future," Mr Peters stated. "A number of states, particularly from the region, have stepped up to contribute to the Board's role on Gaza, and New Zealand would not add significant further value to that."

The board's draft charter has raised eyebrows internationally for its broad language and failure to specifically mention the Gaza conflict. This has fuelled suspicions among Western nations that President Trump might be attempting to create an alternative to the United Nations, especially given his administration's recent withdrawal from numerous UN agencies, including the World Health Organisation earlier this month.

Coalition Unity and Political Criticism

Prime Minister Luxon confirmed that all three coalition parties in New Zealand's government were aligned in their decision to reject the invitation. "The government has considered President Trump's invitation and has decided not to join the Board of Peace in its current form," he stated unequivocally.

However, the decision faced criticism from opposition Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who accused Mr Luxon of "being too polite" about the invitation and described any consideration period as an "absolute disgrace." Mr Hipkins argued that "the idea that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin can sit around a table and decide on one nation's peace while they wage their own wars is absurd."

Board Structure and International Participation

The Board of Peace describes itself as "an international organisation that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict." However, its operational parameters have caused confusion among traditional US allies.

Membership is restricted to states invited by Chairman Donald Trump and requires a $1 billion contribution for permanent status, though members can be removed at the chairman's discretion. President Trump will serve as the board's chairman for life and as the first American representative, with the latter position passing to his successors.

Despite Western reluctance, several Middle Eastern and Asian nations have joined the initiative, including:

  • Turkey
  • Egypt
  • Jordan
  • Indonesia
  • Pakistan
  • Qatar
  • Saudi Arabia
  • United Arab Emirates

The United States claims that 35 countries have agreed to participate, including Israel. However, President Trump's reassurances that the board will work alongside the UN have been undermined by his recent threats against Greenland, which is part of NATO ally Denmark, creating further diplomatic unease among Western partners.

New Zealand has indicated it will continue monitoring developments regarding the Board of Peace but maintains its position of non-participation until greater clarity about the initiative's purpose and alignment with established international frameworks is provided.