Paul G. Buchanan: When Beggars can be Choosy

13 March 2007

When Beggars can be Choosy

By Paul G. Buchanan

The upcoming state visit to the White House by Prime Minister Helen Clark confirms the view that US-New Zealand relations are warming up. After a cooling of relations during the first term of George W. Bush, notable for the intemperate remarks by US envoys about the obstacles New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy and refusal to send combat troops (at least publicly) to Iraq pose for the achievement of a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries, recent statements by US diplomatic and congressional officials point towards a softening of the US stance.

This is reasonable given that the US needs all the friends it can get. It is bogged down in a war of occupation that its own people do not support and which has been repudiated by many of its erstwhile allies while galvanizing Muslim anger at its imperial overreach. It is isolated diplomatically and, because of revelations of excesses both at home and abroad with regards to official conduct and treatment of opponents, has lost any claim to moral leadership in global affairs that it may have had.

Even if President Bush is a lame duck staring at the last two years of his tenure, and with the real possibility of the Democrats gaining control of the White House in 2008, the state visit is an opportune moment for New Zealand. That is because respect for New Zealand transcends partisan differences in Washington D.C., which opens a window of opportunity for Ms. Clark to press the tactical advantage.

To be sure, the Prime Minister is disingenuous when she says that Iraq will not be discussed, and that the emphasis will be on areas of shared opinion like trade, political instability in the Pacific and counter-terrorism. The terms of the discussions between parties at state visits are determined by the host government and negotiated around the margins by the invited party. Iraq is the foremost—some would say overwhelming—foreign policy issue for the US today. Thus it is bound to be part of the agenda, and the euphemism “counter-terrorism” could well be the code phrase to cover that aspect of the talks. Far from not wanting to discuss the debacle in Iraq, it is here where the Prime Minister can press her case for tangible proof of improvement in New Zealand-US relations.

New Zealand has combat and support troops in Afghanistan as part of the UN-led nation-building effort there. It had a contingent of military engineers in Basra for over a year, and any serious talk about post-occupation UN-led reconstruction efforts in Iraq is bound to involve New Zealand at a diplomatic, if not military level.

New Zealand has a primary role in intelligence gathering in the Southwestern Pacific, and the recent SIS report highlighting concerns about foreign intelligence gathering operations on these shores points to the importance New Zealand has as a regional agent of the US-led intelligence network. New Zealand conducts maritime interdiction and anti-piracy operations efforts with regional allies in Western Pacific waters, and has renewed its commitment to send a frigate to the Persian Gulf as part of the anti-weapons smuggling sea-lane picket in that theater.

Given these contributions, there is no reason that Helen Clark should arrive at the White House as a supplicant. Instead, she should take heart from the experience of another small country when it comes to receiving favour from the US: Uruguay.

During his recent trip to Latin America President Bush announced the extension of a bilateral FTA between the US and Uruguay. This is remarkable because Uruguay was not lobbying for one, already being a member of the MERCOSUR free trade zone (in which its domestic manufacturing industry was decimated by competition from its larger neighbours Argentina and Brazil). It is led by a genuine Socialist (as opposed to chardonnay socialist) president, Tabare Vazquez, who leads a leftist parliamentary majority in which the Communist Party and former Tupamaro guerrillas are significant members.

Yet, for all of the ideological distance between the two governments, President Bush came to Montevideo bearing gifts. The reason is simple: for the US, FTAs are more political agreements rather than economic agreements. They are awarded to reward cooperation and cement agreement on areas of joint interest outside of trade itself.

In Uruguay’s case, the US interest is in securing the support of a “rational” leftist government against the anti-imperialist and populist bluster of oil-rich Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. The US is running scared in Latin America, and president Vazquez’s refusal to support Mr. Chavez’s anti-American crusade raised his stature in Washington even though Uruguay also opposed the Iraq war, has never sent troops to Afghanistan, and in general has a record of diplomatic opposition to the US in the UN and regional forums such as the Organization of American States.

With that in mind, it behooves the Prime Minister to make the case that New Zealand needs to receive something tangible for all the quiet cooperation it has offered the US over the last six years. Support for a New Zealand-US FTA crosses the Democrat-Republican divide, with opposition equally split amongst protectionist congressional blocs representing districts in which New Zealand products would represent a competitive threat. Given that mixed support, the Prime Minister can make the case that New Zealand’s diplomatic and military support for the US is worth an FTA regardless of the ongoing differences about nuclear issues and the legitimacy of the Iraq war. Some things are too important to be left to parochial and localized pressure groups, and if ever the US had a need to overcome narrow self-interest, it is in its present conduct of foreign affairs.

Thus, the Prime Minister should not be shy about presenting New Zealand’s best case for improved treatment from the US. She has nothing to lose in being forceful and direct. In fact, the only potential pitfall in presenting New Zealand’s assertive position is if she allows Winston Peters rather than herself to do the talking.

A former advisor and consultant to several US intelligence and security agencies, Paul G. Buchanan is the Director of the Working Group on Alternative Security Perspectives at the University of Auckland.

ENDS

© Scoop Media