New Zealand Formally Declines Participation in Donald Trump’s Proposed Peace Council

The New Zealand government has officially announced its decision to decline an invitation to participate in the "Peace Council," a new international initiative spearheaded by U.S. President Donald Trump. On Friday, January 30, 2026, Foreign Minister Winston Peters confirmed that Wellington would not be joining the Council in its present form, though he noted that the government would continue to monitor the organization’s development and activities from a distance. This significant foreign policy move was the result of high-level consultations between Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, ensuring a coordinated approach among the country's top leadership regarding this unconventional diplomatic proposal.

Minister Peters highlighted that New Zealand’s long-standing status as a founding member and dedicated supporter of the United Nations (UN) played a pivotal role in this determination. He asserted that Wellington remains committed to the principle that any new global peace-seeking body must be structured to fully complement and adhere to the established tenets of the UN Charter. Beyond these institutional concerns, the decision was also informed by practical regional dynamics. Since the Peace Council’s primary focus is currently centered on the Gaza Strip—a region where several local states are already deeply involved—New Zealand officials determined that their participation would not offer a substantial or unique additional contribution to the existing peace efforts in that specific area.

The Peace Council was officially inaugurated by Donald Trump on January 22, 2026, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Initially, the body was presented as a core element of a broader American strategy to resolve the conflict in Gaza, operating under a mandate that had been acknowledged by the UN Security Council through Resolution 2803 in November 2025. However, the nature of the organization has since come under scrutiny. Internal documents obtained by members of the press revealed that the final version of the Council’s founding charter lacked specific mentions of Gaza, leading many to believe that the organization’s true ambitions are far more global and expansive than originally advertised.

This ambiguity, coupled with the Council's unique organizational structure, has fueled concerns among international critics who suspect the body may be intended as a direct competitor to the United Nations. The founding documents contain several controversial provisions, most notably the proposal for a lifetime chairmanship for Donald Trump, which would grant him permanent veto power over the Council's actions. Furthermore, the organization requires a massive $1 billion donation from member states to extend their participation beyond an initial three-year term. The Council's strategic direction is overseen by an executive board chaired by Trump, which includes prominent figures such as Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, and Sir Tony Blair.

The international community’s reaction to the Peace Council has been deeply polarized, reflecting a split between regional powers and traditional Western allies. While a number of influential nations—including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Indonesia—have already accepted positions on the Council’s board, many global powers have exhibited a much more cautious stance. Within the European Union, the invitation was accepted only by Hungary and Bulgaria. In contrast, major Western nations such as France and Norway, alongside New Zealand and Croatia, have either expressed significant reservations or flatly rejected the proposal, citing concerns over the Council's legitimacy and its relationship with existing international frameworks.

Wellington’s refusal to join the initiative aligns with a broader sentiment observed among several established Western democracies. This perspective was perhaps most clearly articulated by Germany, which recently stated that it saw no necessity for the creation of an alternative peace council, arguing that the international community already possesses a legitimate and functional body for such matters in the form of the United Nations. By choosing to prioritize established multilateral institutions, New Zealand and its like-minded partners are reinforcing their commitment to the traditional rules-based international order over the new, centralized model proposed by the Trump administration.