New Zealand will campaign to return to the United Nations Security Council - but not for another 15 years - and to reform its voting structure.
During New Zealand's annual address to the UN General Assembly, made on Friday (AEST), Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters announced New Zealand would attempt to join the key UN body for a two-year term starting in 2039.
Should it succeed, Mr Peters would be 94 when New Zealand takes its seat.
In his address, Mr Peters offered support for the UN but criticism of its institutional failings, most notably the ability of the five permanent members to veto resolutions at the Security Council (UNSC).
"Despite our frustration at the lack of political will required to adapt this organisation to fully meet the challenges of today, New Zealand's support for the United Nations remains unwavering," he said.
"To that end, we announce today New Zealand's intention, as a voice for small states, to campaign for a seat on the Security Council for the 2039-40 term."
Mr Peters quoted Winston Churchill twice, including his infamous "meeting jaw to jaw is better than war" line.
He also recalled the war-time UK leader's 1943 quote, "the price of greatness is responsibility", to make an argument about the need for UNSC reform.
The UNSC is the most significant UN body, with the ability to make binding decisions of international law.
The five permanent members - the US, China, UK, France and Russia - can veto any resolution, meaning any issues those five nations oppose face no prospect of passing.
"While some permanent members exercise restraint in their use of the veto, others consistently and frequently abuse this power," Mr Peters said.
"When Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, illegally invaded its neighbour, it did not just violate Article 2, paragraph 4 of the charter, it acted in utter contempt of the charter.
"Russia then vetoed a draft Security Council resolution condemning its actions and calling for the immediate withdrawal of its forces from Ukraine.
"Not only does Russia lack the sincerity and moral determination required to make the United Nations work, but its delinquency should be a clarion call for long overdue Security Council reform."
Joining the five permanent powers on the UNSC are 10 other nations drawn from across the globe, which campaign for support from other nations to serve two-year terms.
Campaigns to take a UNSC seat involve years of diplomacy to win the support of other voting nations, and cost tens of millions of dollars.
Australia reportedly spent $25 million on its successful campaign to join the body in 2013-14, and is running again for membership during 2029-30.
A campaign so far in the distance may be met with raised eyebrows or even ridicule, with New Zealand hoping a campaign in the distance avoids an expensive contested vote.
New Zealand has served on the key UN body four times, most recently in 2015-16, when it made waves for sponsoring a resolution on the rights of Palestinians.
The resolution passed as permanent members - including the US, Israel's key ally - chose not to exercise their veto.
Israel pulled its ambassador from Wellington in the aftermath of that vote, with President Benjamin Netanyahu telling then Kiwi foreign minister Murray McCully he considered it a "declaration of war".
New Zealand broke with allies like Australia and like-minded nations like UK and Canada last week to vote in favour of a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution which ordered Israel's settlers and soldiers out of Palestine within a year.
This has caused waves locally, with key Jewish groups condemning the "naive" vote and Palestine's envoy to New Zealand heralding the support.
It also caused friction within New Zealand's government, a coalition of three right-leaning parties.
The vote was taken by Mr Peters, the leader of NZ First, in consultation with Prime Minister Chris Luxon, of the conservative National party, leaving the third party - libertarians ACT - in the cold.
ACT leader David Seymour criticised the lack of consultation, which many have read as tacit disapproval of the new positioning.
