Our Man Phil

I’m yet to see anything remarkable come out of the New Zealand WikiLeaks cables. We have learned that various politicians are prone to saying one thing in public, while behind closed doors saying something else. Or so it would appear.

For example, who remembers Chris Finlayson saying anything publicly about just dumping our anti-nukes position without consultation – even if the policy is a relic from the Cold War that is merely symbolic?

I also found intriguing the cable of a meeting between Trade Minister Tim Groser and US official Robert Clark in September last year. 

After asking his two DFAT advisors to leave the room, Groser opened what he termed a frank political discussion. He outlined the political landmines that might befall any trade discussions with the U.S. He described Opposition Leader Phil Goff as a man under ""extreme pressure."" Goff himself is pro-U.S. and moderate, but there is an anti-U.S. component ""at the fringe of the left wing of the Labour Party,"" which seeks to exploit opportunities to replace him. Bringing the U.S. into the TPP could magnify anti-U.S. rhetoric. If Goff remains opposition leader, he should be able to contain this potential. However, if Goff fails and New Zealand is in the middle of negotiations with the U.S., you could suddenly see a ""real anti-American element spring up."" Groser emphasized that the New Zealand Government is trying to manage this process in a ""mature way"" so the opposition will be brought into the process early on to seek their buy-in. Groser, however, expressed his confidence that Goff would remain at the head of the Labour Party and as opposition leader going into the next election.

I could understand why as Trade Minister you would want to reassure the world’s biggest power that the leader of the Opposition is not hostile to that power’s interests. When it comes to trade and foreign affairs I would expect both major parties to be keen to show a united front, and to back each other.  But Groser has gone further than just saying that Phil Goff largely supports the NZ-US relationship. He has also suggested that there are anti-US elements within Labour seeking to replace Goff. This might suggest to a nervous US that under the next Labour government the relationship might be under threat unless Goff is in charge. How do such statements help the national interest?

In any event, Groser’s analysis may be faulty. There may be an anti-US flavor to some of the activism within Labour, but it is not loud, and it is unlikely to have much to do with any eventual challenge to Goff as leader. If anything, Goff has probably moved further to the left with some of his public statements of late concerning matters of defence and foreign affairs, for example regarding the deployment of the SAS in Afghanistan. Goff is in trouble because of his dire polling, and it is hard to see how his being strongly committed to the US relationship would affect his ratings.

It’s also useful to remember that the cables do not provide conclusive evidence of anything said or done by any New Zealand politician. They are reports and summaries prepared by embassy staff and US officials based on their communications with those politicians. That doesn’t mean they don’t provide useful information. But we should be careful about putting too much value on them, because we don’t know how reliable the cables are, and whether they accurately report what was said and done.