

Currently released so far... 12648 / 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
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
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 Niamey
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 Sapporo
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
AORC
AF
AU
ASEC
AMGT
AS
APER
AR
AG
ARF
AJ
AA
AINF
APECO
AODE
ABLD
AMG
ATPDEA
AE
AEMR
AMED
AGAO
AFIN
AL
ASUP
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AID
ASCH
AM
AORL
ASEAN
APEC
ADM
AFSI
AFSN
ADCO
ABUD
AN
AY
AIT
AGR
ACOA
ANET
ASIG
AMCHAMS
AGMT
AADP
ADPM
ATRN
ALOW
ACS
APCS
AFFAIRS
ADANA
AECL
ACAO
AORG
AROC
AO
ACABQ
AX
AMEX
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AND
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
ACBAQ
AC
AUC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
AFU
BR
BTIO
BY
BO
BA
BU
BL
BN
BM
BF
BEXP
BK
BG
BB
BTIU
BBSR
BRUSSELS
BD
BIDEN
BE
BH
BILAT
BC
BX
BT
BP
BMGT
BWC
CS
CA
CH
CD
CO
CE
CU
CVIS
CASC
CJAN
CI
CPAS
CMGT
CDG
CIC
CAC
CBW
CWC
COUNTER
CW
CT
CY
CNARC
CACM
CG
CB
CM
CV
CIDA
CLINTON
CHR
COE
CR
CIS
CDC
CONS
CF
CODEL
COPUOS
CIA
CFED
CARSON
CL
CROS
CAPC
CTR
CACS
CN
CBSA
CEUDA
COM
CONDOLEEZZA
CICTE
COUNTRY
CBE
CKGR
CVR
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CLEARANCE
CARICOM
CSW
CITT
CDB
CJUS
CTM
CAN
CLMT
CBC
EAID
ECON
EFIS
ETRD
EC
ENRG
EINV
EFIN
EAGR
ETTC
ECPS
EINT
ES
EIND
EAIR
EU
EUN
EG
EPET
ELAB
EWWT
EMIN
ECIN
ESA
ER
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
EAIG
ET
ETRO
ELTN
EI
EN
EUR
EK
EUMEM
EPA
ENGR
EXTERNAL
EUREM
ELN
EUC
ENERG
ENIV
EZ
ERD
EFTA
ETRC
ETRN
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ESENV
ENNP
ENVI
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECINECONCS
EFINECONCS
ELECTIONS
ENVR
EXIM
ERNG
ECA
EINVEFIN
ETC
EAP
ECONOMY
EINN
ECONOMIC
EXBS
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
EIAR
EINDETRD
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
EFIM
EAIDS
EREL
EINVETC
ECONCS
ETRA
IC
IV
IAEA
IR
IO
IT
IN
IS
IZ
IMO
IPR
IWC
ICAO
ILO
ID
ICTY
ICJ
INMARSAT
INDO
IL
IMF
IRS
IQ
IA
ICRC
IDA
IAHRC
IBRD
ISLAMISTS
IGAD
ILC
ITU
ITF
INRA
INRO
IDP
ICTR
IEFIN
IRC
ITRA
ITALY
INRB
INTELSAT
IBET
IRAQI
ISRAELI
IIP
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
INTERNAL
INTERPOL
IEA
INR
IZPREL
IRAJ
IF
ITPHUM
ISRAEL
IACI
KBTR
KPAO
KOMC
KCRM
KDEM
KHIV
KBIO
KTIA
KMDR
KNNP
KSCA
KTIP
KWMN
KIPR
KCOR
KRVC
KFRD
KPAL
KWBG
KE
KTDB
KUNR
KSPR
KJUS
KGHG
KAWC
KCFE
KGCC
KOLY
KSUM
KACT
KISL
KTFN
KFLU
KSTH
KMPI
KHDP
KS
KHLS
KMRS
KID
KN
KU
KAWK
KSAC
KCOM
KAID
KIRC
KWMNCS
KMCA
KNEI
KCRS
KPKO
KICC
KPOA
KV
KDRG
KIRF
KSEO
KVPR
KSEP
KTER
KBCT
KFIN
KGIC
KCIP
KZ
KG
KWAC
KRAD
KPRP
KTEX
KNAR
KPLS
KPAK
KSTC
KFLO
KSCI
KIDE
KOMS
KHSA
KSAF
KPWR
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFSC
KRIM
KVRP
KENV
KNSD
KCGC
KDDG
KPRV
KTBT
KWMM
KMFO
KMOC
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KPAI
KO
KVIR
KREC
KX
KR
KCRCM
KBTS
KOCI
KGIT
KNUP
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KTLA
KCSY
KTRD
KNPP
KJUST
KCMR
KRCM
KCFC
KCHG
KREL
KFTFN
KLIG
KDEMAF
KICA
KHUM
KSEC
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KWWMN
KOM
KWNM
KRFD
KMIG
KRGY
KIFR
MARR
MOPS
MASS
MX
MNUC
MCAP
MO
MR
MEPP
MTCRE
MAPP
MEPN
MZ
MT
ML
MA
MY
MIL
MD
MASSMNUC
MU
MK
MTCR
MUCN
MAS
MEDIA
MAR
MC
MI
MQADHAFI
MPOS
MTRE
MASC
MG
MARAD
MRCRE
MW
MP
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MEPI
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MCC
MIK
MAPS
MV
MILITARY
MDC
NATO
NZ
NL
NO
NK
NU
NPT
NI
NG
NEW
NSF
NA
NPG
NSG
NE
NSSP
NS
NDP
NSC
NAFTA
NH
NV
NP
NPA
NSFO
NT
NW
NASA
NORAD
NATIONAL
NGO
NR
NIPP
NZUS
NC
NRR
NAR
NATOPREL
OEXC
OTRA
OPRC
OVIP
OAS
OIIP
OSCE
OREP
OPIC
OFDP
OMIG
ODIP
OVP
OSCI
OIC
OECD
OIE
OPDC
ON
OCII
OPAD
OBSP
OFFICIALS
OPCW
OHUM
OES
OCS
OTR
OSAC
OFDA
PGOV
PREL
PM
PHUM
PTER
PINR
PINS
PREF
PARM
PL
PK
PU
PBTS
PBIO
PHSA
PE
PO
PROP
PA
PNAT
POL
PLN
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PCUL
PAK
PGGV
PAO
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PAS
PGIV
PHUMPREL
PCI
PG
POGOV
PHUMPGOV
PEL
POLITICS
POLICY
PINL
PP
PREO
PAHO
PBT
PMIL
POV
PRL
PDOV
PTBS
PRAM
PREFA
PSI
PAIGH
POSTS
PALESTINIAN
PARMS
PROG
PTERE
PRGOV
PORG
PS
PGOF
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PINF
PNG
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PGOC
PY
PHUH
PF
PHUS
RU
RS
RO
RW
RP
RFE
REGION
REACTION
REPORT
ROOD
RCMP
RM
RSO
ROBERT
RICE
RSP
RF
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
RUPREL
RELATIONS
SENV
SU
SCUL
SOCI
SNAR
SL
SW
SMIG
SP
SY
SA
SHUM
SZ
SYRIA
SF
SR
SO
SARS
SN
SC
SIPRS
SI
SYR
SEVN
SG
SPCE
SK
STEINBERG
SH
SNARCS
SAARC
SCRS
SENVKGHG
SAN
ST
SIPDIS
SNARIZ
SNARN
SSA
SPCVIS
SOFA
SEN
SANC
SWE
SHI
TW
TU
TBIO
TSPL
TPHY
TRGY
TC
TT
TSPA
TINT
TERRORISM
TX
TR
TS
TN
TD
TH
TIP
TNGD
TI
TZ
THPY
TP
TBID
TF
TL
TV
TK
TO
TRSY
TURKEY
TFIN
TAGS
UN
UK
UNSC
UNGA
US
UNESCO
UP
UNHRC
UNAUS
USTR
UNDP
UNEP
UY
UNCHR
UG
UZ
UNPUOS
USEU
UNMIK
UNDC
UNICEF
UV
UNHCR
UNCHC
UNCSD
USOAS
UNFCYP
USUN
USNC
UNIDROIT
UNO
UNCND
USPS
USAID
UE
UNVIE
UAE
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNDESCO
UNC
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 05WELLINGTON157, REQUEST FROM AMBASSADOR SWINDELLS FOR INTERAGENCY
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. #05WELLINGTON157.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
05WELLINGTON157 | 2005-02-22 20:30 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | 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 04 WELLINGTON 000157
SIPDIS
NOFORN
FOR EAP/FO SCHRIVER; EAP/ANP KRAWITZ, ALLEGRA AND RAMSEY
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/22/2015
TAGS: PREL PGOV NZ
SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM AMBASSADOR SWINDELLS FOR INTERAGENCY
REVIEW
REF: WELLINGTON 56 (NODIS)
Classified By: AMBASSADOR CHARLES J. SWINDELLS,
FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D).
¶1. (S/NOFORN) After the horrific earthquake and tsunami in
our region, there are far weightier U.S. foreign policy issues
to manage in Asia than our relationship with New Zealand.
But
I am writing to request that U.S. Government agencies
nevertheless conduct a quick review of our policies here,
specifically with regards to New Zealand's anti-nuclear
legislation. Conducting a review at this time could pay off,
as I believe that this country's upcoming elections and its
desire for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United
States
make 2005 the best opportunity we have had in twenty years to
convince New Zealand to reconsider its ban on
nuclear-propelled
vessels. At the very least, a review would develop a clear,
comprehensive, and consistent message to set the stage for
the
next four years of the Administration as well as the new
Government of New Zealand.
--------------------------------------------- -------------
A review should examine what we want from the relationship
--------------------------------------------- -------------
¶2. (S/NOFORN) The nuclear ban has since its inception
colored
and limited our relationship with New Zealand. Over time,
the
United States has lifted some of its limits on bilateral
military and intelligence cooperation we imposed after the
ban was implemented in 1984. Our sense is that we have gone
as far as we can go on our own. A review should determine,
first and foremost, whether we should accept this status quo,
and if so, whether we should broaden the relationship in
other
ways or make it clear to New Zealand that no deepening of
ties are possible if the ban remains in place. And we must
decide how best to convey our message.
¶3. (S/NOFORN) As of now, New Zealand officials effectively
determine the issues for discussion in our bilateral
relationship. An example is their aggressive "forum
shopping"
among USG agencies and Congress to press for a US-New Zealand
FTA. At the same time, these officials argue that the
nuclear
issue is too sensitive even to discuss; that as the world's
only superpower we should just get over it and stop
"bullying"
this small country. The past is the past, they say. The
problem is, this is not about the past. Were other countries
to adopt policies similar to New Zealand's and forbid our
nuclear-powered ships to enter their ports, our efforts to
create a more mobile military would be seriously impaired
in Asia and beyond.
¶4. (S/NOFORN) Other red herring arguments that New Zealand
officials use to keep the nuclear issue off the table can be
similarly rebutted. For example, when I recently raised the
ban with Foreign Minister Goff, he argued that the New
Zealand
government is unable to revisit its nuclear policy because
the
public "will know we are only doing it because you asked us
to." This message makes painfully clear that the government
does not consider a U.S. request in itself a reason for
taking
action, a stance that both springs from and feeds into
deepening anti-Americanism here.
¶5. (S/NOFORN) A Foreign Ministry staffer later clarified
that Mr. Goff really meant that the public would oppose any
"bullying" from the United States on this issue. Those of us
familiar with New Zealand know that in this context "to
bully"
means "to publicly call for." But if the government has
already said publicly and privately it will not conduct any
review of the ban, what alternative remains for us if not an
overt call for them to reconsider?
--------------------------------------------- ---------------
A review should examine the cost to us and others of
New Zealand's Nuclear Ban and its declining
willingness/ability to work with us
--------------------------------------------- ---------------
¶6. (S/NOFORN) Other countries in the region, notably Japan
and Australia, have invested considerable political capital
in their alliance with the United States and do not bar our
nuclear-powered vessels despite formal anti-nuclear policies
and significant domestic opposition. We should not reward
our Kiwi friends at the cost of undercutting these important
allies. They and others in the region -- even tiny Fiji --
also contribute far more to support our military capabilities
around the world than does New Zealand.
¶7. (S/NOFORN) New Zealand's nuclear ban is concurrent with a
20-year failure to invest adequately in its military
infrastructure. In just the latest example, both of the
New Zealand Air Force C-130 aircraft that the government
generously sent to help carry aid and personnel to tsunami
victims broke down and were forced to undergo repairs before
resuming operations. While New Zealand officials point
proudly
to the large numbers of peacekeeping and other operations in
which their military participate, in most cases these
deployments consist of one or two liaison officers.
New Zealand benefits from our deterrence as much as do
others in the region, yet has been unwilling to be anything
approaching a true partner in the effort.
¶8. (S/NOFORN) In fact, the policies that have caused
New Zealand to avoid pulling its weight internationally
reflect ideological drift and lack of vision. The government
articulates no clear definition of non-economic foreign
policy
interests other than a stated commitment to international
organizations and peacekeeping, especially in the region.
Even on these stated interests, New Zealand's practical
contributions often fall short of the mark.
--------------------------------------------- ----------------
A review should examine whether and how to raise our desire
for a review of the nuclear ban
--------------------------------------------- ----------------
¶9. (S/NOFORN) I simply do not consider credible New Zealand
officials' insistence that the public will not tolerate any
discussion of a repeal of the ban. It is true that if you
asked them today, a majority of New Zealanders probably would
oppose a reversal of the nuclear policy. But I have found
many senior citizens and younger Kiwis are actually open to
the idea. To the extent others are not, it is largely
because
the Government has for its own ideological and political
reasons been unwilling to discuss the issue honestly.
¶10. (S/NOFORN) After U.S. aircraft carriers were called into
assistance after the recent tsunami, readers' letters to a
major local newspaper highlighted the fact that because of
the country's nuclear ban similar U.S. assistance would not
be possible here in the wake of a natural disaster. These
readers called for the ban to be lifted.
¶11. (S/NOFORN) In fact, there has been some preliminary
debate about the ban here. Two previous reviews -- one
commissioned by the National Party-led Government in 1992
and one by the National Party in early 1994 -- found there
was no scientific basis on which to bar nuclear-powered
vessels from New Zealand. As Dr. Andrew McEwan, the
country's
foremost nuclear scientist has pointed out in a recent book,
New Zealand's "nuclear free" status is something of a
fiction,
given that there are about 2500 importations of nuclear
reactor-produced material into New Zealand each year for
x-rays, radiation treatments, and other purposes. (This
does not include imports of things such as smoke detectors
and certain watches that also contain radioactive materials.)
¶12. (S/NOFORN) Although the National Party has been the only
party to examine seriously the possibility of ending the
country's nuclear ban, in my view Labour is best placed to
reverse the legislation. When in power in the '90s, National
failed to take any action on the ban, preferring not to spend
political capital to do so. As an opposition party, they can
do even less. At this time, polls continue to show Labour as
the likely victor in the general election that will probably
be held this September. But the real reason we should urge
the Labour government to reexamine the ban is that, as the
original authors of the law, it is their party that would be
most likely to win a public mandate to change it. Many of
the original players who created the ban in all its
inflexible
glory are in power today, including Prime Minister Clark.
¶13. (S/NOFORN) The Prime Minister has shown that she can
push
through highly sensitive pieces of legislation. During my
time in New Zealand, she has carried the day on laws as
controversial as nationalization of the foreshore and seabed
and a Civil Union Bill. She has called for a review of the
country's constitution that could profoundly alter New
Zealand's relationship to the UK. All these issues created
heated debates and dominated the front pages, yet the
government prevailed throughout. In short, where this
Prime Minister has the will, she finds the way. In the
case of the nuclear ban, she does not have the will because
she does not think she needs to reopen this issue. I have
begun to include in my speeches a request that New Zealand
reconsider its policy, and I will continue to do so. But
only a move by the government in this direction is likely
to gain traction with the public.
¶14. (S/NOFORN) This election year may be the best time to
convince New Zealand officials it is in their interest to
reconsider the ban. Significantly, the Prime Minister and
her team have not hesitated to raise the nuclear issue
themselves, when stating publicly in implicit election
promises to local businesses that an FTA with the United
States
is inevitable and that New Zealand's bans on nuclear arms
and propulsion simply don't matter to us anymore. Indeed,
PM Clark made this link at a recent speech to the pro-FTA
U.S.-New Zealand Business Council. In this election year,
the Prime Minister and her cabinet doubtless also see a
U.S.-New Zealand FTA as a valuable means to counter criticism
from both the right and left that the government is
negotiating
FTAs primarily with developing countries (such as Thailand)
and
those who abuse human rights (notably China).
--------------------------------------------- ------
A review would enable us to consider what
New Zealand does contribute, and how long
even these small efforts can be sustained:
--------------------------------------------- ------
¶15. (S/NOFORN) As noted, I have stressed both in public and
in private to New Zealanders that the nuclear ban does still
matter to us. But frankly, messages from Washington to
New Zealand officials are not always consistent with this
long-term view. Policymakers have been understandably
focused
on soliciting New Zealand's cooperation in the war on
terrorism,
Iraq, World Trade Organization (WTO) talks, and other issues.
While these are all obviously of the greatest importance, our
failure to at the same time honestly tell New Zealand that
the
nuclear ban remains important to us has enabled New Zealand
officials to claim that the issue is irrelevant in light of
their other contributions. Meanwhile, they continue to
lobby heavily for an FTA, including through the New Zealand
Caucus that will be launched in the U.S. House of
Representatives next month.
¶16. (S/NOFORN) In their approaches to the Embassy, to
Administration officials, and the Congress, New Zealand
Government officials stress that because of their country's
efforts in areas of interest to us, New Zealand should be
considered for a trade agreement. We are likely to soon hear
that New Zealand is to extend its contribution to Operation
Enduring Freedom, for example. We are of course grateful for
all of New Zealand's contributions. But in my view
New Zealand has benefited already from its actions.
For example, New Zealand's own interest in WTO talks is
obvious, given the country's dependence on exports and its
low domestic trade barriers. Sending combat engineers to
Iraq has enabled the giant New Zealand dairy exporter,
Fonterra,
to bid on lucrative Iraq-related contracts. New Zealand and
U.S. troops in Afghanistan can participate in joint training
and exercises that we have not otherwise allowed since
New Zealand pulled out of ANZUS.
¶17. (S/NOFORN) I don't mean to imply that New Zealand has
participated in these efforts solely for its own gain. But
I believe that pushing them harder on the nuclear issue would
have little impact on New Zealand's already limited
willingness
to engage with us around the globe. The cost to us if
New Zealand were to pull out from these efforts would be
another thing an interagency review would need to consider.
--------------------------------------------- ---------------
A review should examine what we could offer in return for a
credible review/lifting of New Zealand's nuclear ban:
--------------------------------------------- ---------------
¶18. (S/NOFORN) U.S. officials have strenuously avoided
linking New Zealand's proposal for an FTA with our desire
that the nuclear ban be ended. And indeed, the two are
linked only in the sense that if our countries are truly
friends, New Zealand should not expect it can press hard
for an FTA and prevent us from even mentioning the nuclear
ban. But in practical terms I have observed that our
preferences for FTA partners are often made along a continuum
of countries' economic and trade potential and our overall
foreign policy interests. Certainly, if there were
significant economic benefits I would strongly support a
U.S.-New Zealand FTA, and have told this to the government
here. An interagency review might consider whether it
would make sense to conduct a feasibility study for an
FTA if New Zealand removes its nuclear ban.
¶19. (S/NOFORN) We could also have a review to determine
what changes in language in the New Zealand legislation
would be enough to satisfy our concerns, as well as what
possible changes in our "neither confirm nor deny" policy
we might be willing to consider were the ban lifted.
The interagency group might also consider allowing a
non-nuclear naval ship visit to New Zealand, for example
to support our operations in Antarctica, if the government
announces a formal review of its nuclear policy. The
Prime Minister has long encouraged such a visit, but we
have rightfully resisted the invitation in light of the ban.
¶20. (S/NOFORN) We must be realistic. Even if New Zealand
lifted its nuclear ban, it will not return any time soon to
being the ally it once was. For example, political officials
here fear a loss of popular support if New Zealand returned
to ANZUS, and those at the senior levels worry about the
budgetary and personnel requirements needed to rejoin the
alliance. But New Zealand's agreement to take a second
look at its nuclear ban would at least open the door to
exploring where both sides want the relationship to go.
-----------
Conclusion:
-----------
¶21. (S/NOFORN) These are just some of my ideas of what an
interagency review might accomplish, and what we should
be aiming to do here in New Zealand. I would very much
like to come to Washington and discuss this idea further,
ideally before the upcoming interagency review of the
Administration's FTA negotiating agenda for the next four
years. Please let me know if my staff and I can provide
any more information to you in the meantime.
¶22. (S/NOFORN) New Zealand may be small, but with a little
bit of time and teamwork, I think we can steer the bilateral
relationship in a direction that is more positive to U.S
interests. Now is the time to try.
Swindells