Margot Oneill

Civility creeps into US relations with NZ

THE White House press corps was momentarily bewildered.

Their rapid fire questioning on the Persian Gulfcrisis paused as President George Bush pondered the role of a little known former US ally which had swung behind Washington’s war effort New Zealand.

It was the second time that New Zealand, which became the darling of the left-wing when it banned nuclear warships in 1984, had supported American military intervention since its acrimonious rift with Washington.

Previously it backed the controversial 1989 US invasion of Panama. Several months later, New Zealand’s then Foreign Minister Mike Moore was given a face to face meeting with Secretary of State, James Baker, ending a diplomatic embargo.

This time George Bush accepted a phone call from NZ Prime Minister Jim Bolger who hoorayed the US-led military victory against Iraq the first such personal contact between the W hite House and the Bee Hive in seven years.

The conservative Government in Wellington had been “very supportive of the (anti-Iraq) coalition,” Mr Bush told the White House press conference, “and we’re not going to forget that. We’re very pleased with that”.

W r hile vital differences of opinion remained over New Zealand’s anti-nuclear ships policy the “American people have never waivered in their affection for the people of New Zealand.” (This was also a favourite theme regarding Iraq the US never had an argument with the people of Iraq, Mr Bush often said.) Now the governments are learning to be nice to each other again. Gone is the bitterness and anger which characterised Washington’s outlook when David Lange dominated

Wellington.

At a recent congressional hearing, US administration officials said they hopeed that the Gulf war would make New Zealanders realise that security alliances were more important then anti-nuclear legislation. They said they were “hopeful” that the legislation would be.

“We don’t know to what degree these developments and New Zealand’s contribution to the Gulf... have led to a change in direction helpful to collective security within New Zealand,” said Richard Solomon, the assistant Secretary of State. “But we note in a number of countries in the region, Japan for example, there has been remarkable evolution of public opinion during the Gulf conflict,” Mr Solomon said.

“We do see the new (Bolger) government trying to undertake certain efforts to work with the New Zealand public to emphasis the value and importance to New Zealand of collective security.”

New Zealand’s new Ambassador to Washington, Denis McLean, has also sounded more upbeat about relations. He has said that he believes some kind of compromise can be found and that New Zealand must seize the initiative.

“Ifyou look at the Pacific in those terms (ofcompeting

Washington

nationalism and regional imbalances) you realise it is not all that much different from the Gulf. There are forces there (in the Pacific region) that could get out of control,” Mr McLean has said.

But lest you begin to imagine a racing trans-Pacific heartbeat, senior US officials say they do not foresee a substantial improvement in relations unless New Zealand reverses its anti-nuclear stance.

The stakes are still the same for Washington. If it accommodates Wellington’s independent defence posture, then it believes it will face similar demands from other more important NATO allies which have “gone mushy” on nuclear deterrence, as one western diplomat put it.

And the conservative government in New Zealand remains officially committed to the policy. Prime Minister Bolger recently said US warships would be welcomed at the 50th birthday of the New Zealand Navy as long as the ships were not nuclear.

The new buzzword is “civility.” Even though the two nations had maintained close co-operation on a range of non security issues including drift-net fishing and trade, Government ministers at all levels can now talk to each other.

New Zealand no longer endures a parish status in Washington a status some New Zealand officials had complained gave them less access than some of the world’s most notorious dictators.

The same year that the United States cut offits security ties with New Zealand, CIA officials were meeting secretly with Saddam Hussein’s government to provide it with classified intelligence to help it in its war against Iran.

Many Asian nations with less than democratic governments enjoy more privileges with the American military than New Zealand.

Not surprisingly, resentments are still harboured on both sides. Some American officials have been heard to complain that the Moore-Baker meeting last year had been badly handled, allowing New Zealand’s then Labour Government to claim a dramatic breakthrough which the Americans

quickly denied.

Former Prime Minister David Lange lashed out at Mr Bolger for his telephone call to George Bush, saying it should have been reverse charges and predicting that the new government would “ooze back” into accepting nuclear weapons.

Mr Lange also harangued Wellington’s new ambassador in Washington who had been his former defence secretary.

Mr McLean’s appointment was a signal that New Zealand is “determined to do everything it can to win favour with the United States,” Mr Lange said.

“Denis McLean will be the highest paid shoeshine boy in the world.”

The irony is that while New Zealand pines to improve its security relationship with the United States, the two nations have a better trade relationship than Australia, which remains a close American military ally.

Recently another Australian trade delegation trekked to Washington pleading for better treatment and warning that continuing export subsidies to American farmers w ere hurting Australian farmers. At the same time a New Zealand diplomat in Washington said his nation’s trade relations with Washington were “excellent”. □