

Currently released so far... 12404 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
ASEC
AE
AF
AM
AR
AJ
AU
AORC
AG
AEMR
AMGT
APER
AGMT
AL
AFIN
AO
AMED
ADCO
AS
ABUD
ABLD
ASUP
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APECO
AID
AND
AMBASSADOR
AN
ARM
AY
AODE
AMG
ASCH
AMCHAMS
ARF
APCS
APEC
ASEAN
AGAO
ANET
ADPM
ACOA
ACABQ
AORL
AFFAIRS
ATRN
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ADANA
ASIG
AA
AX
AUC
AC
AECL
AADP
AGRICULTURE
AMEX
ACAO
ACBAQ
AQ
AORG
ADM
AINF
AIT
ASEX
AGR
AROC
ATFN
AFGHANISTAN
AFU
AER
ALOW
AZ
AVERY
BA
BY
BU
BR
BE
BL
BO
BK
BM
BILAT
BH
BEXP
BF
BTIO
BC
BBSR
BMGT
BTIU
BG
BWC
BB
BD
BX
BP
BRUSSELS
BN
BIDEN
BT
CW
CH
CF
CD
CV
CVIS
CM
CE
CA
CJAN
CLINTON
CIA
CU
CASC
CI
CO
CACM
CDB
CN
CMGT
CS
CG
CBW
CIS
CR
CONDOLEEZZA
CPAS
CAN
CWC
CY
COUNTER
CDG
CL
CT
CIC
CIDA
CSW
CHR
CB
CODEL
COUNTERTERRORISM
CTR
COM
CICTE
CFED
CJUS
CKGR
CBSA
CEUDA
CARSON
CONS
CITEL
CLMT
CROS
CITT
CAC
CVR
CDC
CAPC
COPUOS
CBC
CBE
CARICOM
COE
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CACS
CTM
CNARC
ECON
EFIN
ETRD
EUN
EFIS
EG
ETTC
EZ
EPET
EAID
EAGR
ENRG
ECUN
EU
ELAB
ECPS
EAIR
EINV
ELTN
EWWT
EIND
EMIN
EI
ECIN
ENVR
ELECTIONS
EINVEFIN
EN
ES
ER
EC
EUC
EINT
EINVETC
ENGR
ET
EK
ENIV
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ECONOMY
EAP
EFTA
EUR
EUMEM
EXIM
ERD
ENERG
EUREM
ESA
ERNG
EXTERNAL
EPA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
ECONOMICS
ELN
EINN
EFINECONCS
ENNP
EEPET
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ENVI
ETRO
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ECONOMIC
EAIDS
EDU
ETRA
ETRN
EFIM
EIAR
ETRC
EAIG
EXBS
EURN
ECIP
EREL
ECA
ENGY
ECONCS
ECONEFIN
ETC
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINDETRD
IR
IZ
IS
IAEA
INRB
IRAJ
IQ
IN
IT
IMO
INTERPOL
ICAO
IO
IC
ITALY
ITALIAN
IRAQI
ICTY
ID
IPR
IWC
ILC
INTELSAT
IL
IBRD
IMF
IA
IRC
ICRC
ILO
ITU
ITRA
IV
IDA
IAHRC
ICJ
ISRAELI
IRS
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
IZPREL
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITF
IBET
IEFIN
INR
IACI
INTERNAL
IDP
IGAD
IEA
ICTR
IIP
INRA
INRO
IF
KJUS
KSCA
KNNP
KU
KCOR
KCRM
KDEM
KTFN
KHLS
KPAL
KWBG
KACT
KGHG
KPAO
KTIA
KIRF
KWMN
KS
KG
KZ
KN
KMDR
KISL
KSPR
KHIV
KPRP
KAWK
KR
KUNR
KDRG
KCIP
KGCC
KTIP
KSUM
KPKO
KVIR
KAWC
KPIN
KGIC
KRAD
KIPR
KOLY
KCFE
KMCA
KE
KV
KICC
KNPP
KBCT
KSEP
KFRD
KFLU
KVPR
KOCI
KBIO
KSTH
KMPI
KCRS
KOMC
KTBT
KPLS
KIRC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFLO
KBTS
KSTC
KTDB
KFSC
KX
KFTFN
KNEI
KIDE
KREC
KMRS
KICA
KPAONZ
KCGC
KSAF
KRGY
KCMR
KRVC
KVRP
KSEO
KCOM
KAID
KTEX
KNUC
KNAR
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KLIG
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCRCM
KHDP
KGIT
KNSD
KOMS
KWMM
KPAI
KHSA
KTLA
KO
KMFO
KRCM
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KPWR
KID
KWNM
KRIM
KPOA
KCHG
KOM
KSCI
KFIN
KMOC
KESS
KWAC
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KPRV
KBTR
KERG
KTER
KDDG
KPAK
KRFD
KHUM
KDEV
KCFC
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KJUST
MARR
MOPS
MU
MTCRE
MNUC
MY
MASS
MCAP
MOPPS
MAR
MPOS
MO
ML
MR
MASC
MX
MD
MP
MA
MTRE
MIL
MCC
MZ
MK
MDC
MRCRE
MAPS
MV
MI
MEPN
MAPP
MEETINGS
MAS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTCR
MG
MC
MARAD
MIK
MILITARY
MEDIA
MEPI
MUCN
MEPP
MT
MERCOSUR
MW
MASSMNUC
MQADHAFI
NZ
NATO
NG
NI
NO
NATIONAL
NU
NPT
NIPP
NL
NPG
NS
NA
NGO
NP
NSG
NDP
NAFTA
NR
NC
NH
NE
NSF
NPA
NK
NSSP
NRR
NATOPREL
NSC
NT
NW
NORAD
NEW
NV
NSFO
NAR
NASA
NZUS
OTRA
OVIP
OPRC
OPDC
OSCE
OAS
ODIP
OIIP
OFDP
OVP
OREP
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OIC
OFDA
OSCI
OPIC
OBSP
OECD
ON
OCII
OHUM
OES
OCS
OMIG
OPAD
OTR
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PSOE
PINS
PARM
PK
PBTS
PEPR
PM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PREF
PBIO
PROP
PA
PSI
PINT
PO
PKFK
PL
PAK
PE
POLITICS
PINL
POL
PHSA
PU
PF
POV
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PARMS
PRGOV
PNAT
POLINT
PRAM
PMAR
PG
PAO
PROG
PRELP
PPA
PCUL
PSEPC
PSA
PREO
PAHO
PGIV
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POSTS
PTBS
PGOVLO
PORG
PGOVE
PLN
PINF
PAS
PUNE
POLICY
PDEM
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PHUMPGOV
PMIL
PNG
PP
PS
PHUH
PECON
POGOV
PY
PHUMPREL
PHUS
PRL
PGOC
PNR
PGGV
PROV
PTERE
PGOF
PHUMBA
PEL
RS
RU
RW
REGION
RP
RICE
ROBERT
RSP
RUPREL
RM
RO
RCMP
RSO
RELATIONS
REACTION
REPORT
RIGHTS
ROOD
RF
RFE
RIGHTSPOLMIL
SP
SA
SY
SF
SYR
SENV
SCUL
SOCI
SNAR
SO
SU
SG
STEINBERG
SHUM
SW
SMIG
SR
SZ
SIPRS
SI
SAARC
SPCE
SARS
SN
SYRIA
SANC
SL
SCRS
SC
SENVKGHG
SAN
SNARCS
SHI
SWE
SNARIZ
SIPDIS
SEN
SNARN
SPCVIS
SEVN
SSA
SH
SOFA
SK
ST
TPHY
TU
TRGY
TI
TX
TS
TW
TC
TFIN
TD
TSPA
TH
TT
TIP
TBIO
TSPL
TZ
TERRORISM
TRSY
TN
THPY
TINT
TF
TL
TV
TK
TO
TP
TURKEY
TNGD
TBID
TAGS
TR
UP
US
UNSC
UK
UZ
UE
UNESCO
UV
UNGA
UN
UNMIK
UNO
UY
UAE
UNEP
UG
UNHCR
UNHRC
USUN
UNAUS
USTR
USNC
USOAS
UNCHR
UNCSD
UNDP
USEU
USPS
UNDC
UNDESCO
UNCHC
UNFICYP
UNC
UNODC
UNPUOS
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCHS
UNVIE
USAID
UNIDROIT
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 04WELLINGTON173, THE U.S.-NEW ZEALAND RELATIONSHIP: WHAT WE COULD
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #04WELLINGTON173.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
04WELLINGTON173 | 2004-02-25 21:09 | 2011-04-28 00:12 | SECRET//NOFORN | Embassy Wellington |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 WELLINGTON 000173
SIPDIS
NOFORN
STATE FOR EAP/FO/MDALEY AND EAP/ANP
NSC FOR MGREEN AND CJONES
USINCPAC ALSO FOR POLAD/JHOLZMAN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/15/2014
TAGS: PREL NZ
SUBJECT: THE U.S.-NEW ZEALAND RELATIONSHIP: WHAT WE COULD
NOT SAY IN THE MISSION PROGRAM PLAN
REF: 03 WELLINGTON 0339
Classified By: Charge David R. Burnett; Reasons 1.5 (B and D)
¶1. (S/NF) SUMMARY: Since New Zealand walked away from the
ANZUS pact in 1986, we have had growing doubts about its
willingness and ability to contribute to regional security.
New Zealand remains a relatively friendly, like-minded
partner in many policy areas. But the ad hoc nature of the
its security commitments, decline of its defense capabilities
under successive governments, the current government,s view
of multilateralism as a means to limit U.S. power, and its
flirtation with China and France to limit U.S. and Australian
influence in the Pacific raise questions about the extent to
which we can count on New Zealand on security issues in the
future. The March 9-13 visit of CINCPAC Fargo to New Zealand
could make an important contribution to our dialogue with New
Zealand on its commitment to and capacity for sharing
regional security responsibilities, as well as the growing
compatibility gap with our other South Pacific partner,
Australia. The visit may have a direct bearing on release of
the opposition National Party,s paper on U.S.-New Zealand
relations and will follow a March 3 meeting between PM Clark
and Australian PM Howard, events that are expected to raise
these same concerns. End Summary.
¶2. (S/NF) COMMITMENT: New Zealand,s decision to sit out
the invasion of Iraq was a reminder of how far its security
policies and interests have drifted from those of its
traditional allies since NZ walked away from the ANZUS pact
in 1986 (reftel). Subsequent deployment of 60 combat
engineers to Basra has allowed the current government to
offset some of the damage done to its traditional
relationships while continuing to place criticism of the
Coalition in local media. But the drift in policy is more
fundamental than just differences over Iraq. In laying
groundwork for the visit of Chinese President Hu, the Clark
government privately mooted that it was necessary for New
Zealand to work more closely with other powers such as China
and France to curtail U.S. and Australian influence in the
region. During the visit of the Chinese Vice-Minister for
Trade, NZ Trade Minister Sutton publicly claimed that China
was New Zealand's most important and valued trading partner,
a claim that left Australian officials here scratching their
heads in wonder. Officials of the current government
continue to tout the importance of using the UN and other
multilateral organizations as a means of containing, rather
than engaging with or influencing, the United States.
¶3. (S/NF) Meanwhile, beneath the political level,
long-standing military and intelligence ties continue
virtually unabated. One can make the case that restrictions
levied by the USG on programs in those areas in the wake of
New Zealand's 1986 withdrawal from ANZUS have been
progressively weakened over the intervening years. Increased
use of waivers to provide training or intelligence support
for New Zealanders undertaking missions of interest to the
United States makes sense. Indeed, in this Mission's view,
any military-to-military or intelligence activity that can be
shown to have net benefit to the United States is clearly
worth pursuing. However, it is important to be aware that
these activities are used in New Zealand's domestic political
arena as a counterweight to opposition claims that the GNZ is
neglecting the bilateral relationship or is letting New
Zealand's strategic policies drift. This is why the GNZ
routinely attempts to bypass normal diplomatic channels to
press for further weakening of the restrictions imposed in
the wake of the introduction of the anti-nuclear policy.
¶4. (S/NF) It is also useful to note that the degree of
commitment expressed by military or intelligence counterparts
is often stronger than that of their political masters. For
example, in a discussion with State Counterterrorism
Coordinator Cofer Black on Indonesia, NZ military and
intelligence officials were enthusiastic about the
possibility that they could augment U.S. and Australian
efforts. However, the PM's senior policy advisor immediately
interjected that past Indonesian repression in East Timor
would make it impossible for New Zealand to engage in CT
activities there. The same individual also agreed after
lengthy discussion of various CT threats in the region that
these matters were indeed serious, but said New Zealand's
senior political leadership was far more concerned about food
security than physical security. With commitment gaps like
these, it is important that we take our cue on New Zealand's
commitment to regional security from those who set the
budgets and mandate the policies.
¶5. (S/NF) CAPABILITY: Successive governments have allowed
New Zealand's defense capabilities to decline since the
mid-1980s. We have been told by retired GNZ officials who
were in senior positions in the Lange government at the time
the anti-nuclear policy was instituted that one of the
considerations favoring the policy was that it would lead to
NZ withdrawing or being pushed out of ANZUS, thereby
lessening the country's defense spending requirements at a
time of fiscal and economic crisis. Defense budgets since
that time have not even been adequate to cover replacement
costs for basic coastal defense hardware. To its credit, the
Clark government, after scrapping the previous government's
agreement to buy F-16s, has moved to replace aging frigates,
helicopters and light-armored vehicles. It has allocated
NZ$3.0 billion over 10 years for this purpose. We have asked
repeatedly at all levels where that number came from, and
have never gotten a satisfactory answer. In any case, given
this apparently arbitrary budget figure, the military has
done its best to set priorities consistent with basic
defense, a limited peacekeeping role and an occasional nod to
its previous allies (e.g., sending an appropriately
configured frigate to the Persian Gulf). Some of the new
equipment, such as the LAV-IIIs, is less versatile than the
equipment it is replacing. Other hardware will be limited in
scope because it is meant to be used with systems that the
NZDF will no longer have -- e.g., combat helicopters but no
joint strike fighters. Finally, maintenance of the new
systems is not fully accounted for in the acquisition and
deployment costs covered by the NZ$3.0 billion budgeted.
¶6. (S/NF) Cuts in hardware and redefinition of the
military's role as peacekeepers rather than peacemakers have
made recruitment and retention more difficult. Fighter
pilots have left the Air Force in droves. The NZDF is
hard-pressed to come up with two rotations of troops for
peacekeeping operations when even that is less than the
minimum three rotations required for effective long-term
operations. Only the elite SAS (three squadrons) is still
fully equipped and funded for missions relevant to the new
threats emerging in the region and beyond. The combat
engineers in Basra and the PRT in Bamian Province have
acquitted themselves well, but have been heavily dependent
for transport and other support services on ourselves and the
British. Closer to home, when the Australians asked the
Kiwis for help in the Solomon Islands, New Zealand's initial
offer was to keep an army company "on reserve" in New
Zealand. Meanwhile, Fiji sent 400 or so troops. Finally,
after great pressure from the Australians, the GNZ relented
and agreed to send troops. After all that, according to the
Australian High Commissioner (protect), due to an equipment
breakdown, the troops had to be flown to the Solomons on
Australian aircraft.
¶7. (S/NF) COMPATIBILITY: Given reduced commitment levels and
declining capability, the ability to work with
better-equipped, more focused forces would seem to be crucial
to maintaining an appropriate level of influence in the
region and beyond. This Mission does not expect a country of
four million people to punch at the same level as the United
States, or even Australia. However, the growing gap between
what the Australians can do in the South Pacific and the
ability of the Kiwis to help them do it is of great concern
to Australia, and should be of concern to us as well. For
example, we are pleased that New Zealand plans to equip its
new frigates with communications systems compatible with our
own. However, the contribution those frigates could make to
peacekeeping operations in Melanesia or Indonesia is limited,
and the military assets the NZDF could contribute to such
operations will not be interoperable with either Australian
hardware or our own.
¶8. (S/NF) OUR MESSAGE: We have already begun to raise the
above concerns with the GNZ. Beginning with Admiral Fargo's
visit, we would like to give them a higher profile in private
and in public. In doing so, we must be careful not allow
ourselves to be painted by the Clark government as bullies
telling Kiwis how to spend their tax dollars. We would
suggest the following themes:
-- We value our long-standing military and intelligence
relationship with New Zealand and the commonality of values
on which that relationship is based.
-- We are facing a world that has become increasingly
uncertain since the end of the Cold War; we all need to know
whom we can count on, for what, and when.
-- Many decisions by successive New Zealand governments over
the past 20 years beginning with, but not limited to, the
anti-nuclear policy have raised questions about whether we
can continue to count on New Zealand as a partner in ensuring
the security of this region.
-- While we may differ on any number of aspects of foreign
policy, the security of this region is clearly of mutual
concern.
-- We look forward to continued consultations with the
Government of New Zealand on your country's commitment to
this vital objective, your capability to join with us and
others to contribute to achieving our shared goals, and the
compatibility of New Zealand's future contributions with
those of its other partners.
¶9. (S/NF) Comment: We believe the message themes outlined
above will reduce the Clark government's wiggle room on
whether it prefers to work with us and Australia in the
region, or against us. We also believe engaging in an honest
dialogue on these themes will reassure New Zealanders that,
while we sould like to be able to count on a New Zealand with
greater capability, compatibility and commitment, we are not
asking them to do more than their fair share. In sum, the
creative ambiguity in our relationship since 1986 has
permitted us to do a great deal together in areas of mutual
interest, despite a major policy difference. It has also
allowed New Zealand to drift farther and farther from its
former alliance partners in its commitment to what should be
shared foreign policy goals. It has permitted a generation
of New Zealanders to believe our shared history began, and
perhaps ended, with the Vietnam War. Worst of all, it has
encouraged them to ignore any parallels between China's
interest in the region today and that of Japan in the 1920s
and '30s.
¶10. (S/NF) One of the most common questions we have run into
in discussing the remote prospect that the GNZ might scrap
all or part of the anti-nuclear policy is "If we were to do
so, would you expect us to resurrect the commitments of
ANZUS?" At present, we do not have a good answer to that
question. Replying "Change the policy and we will see," is of
scant help to those Kiwis who would like to see a closer
U.S.-NZ relationship. This Mission believes a frank
discussion of our mutual expectations on regional security
commitments, capabilities and compatibility would be useful
in furthering the bilateral relationship. If carefully
handled, it could also make a fruitful contribution to the
public discussion of the U.S.-New Zealand relationship
sparked by the U.S.-Australia FTA negotiations.
Burnett