John Armstrong: Peters hitting right notes

It has taken a while - it was always going to - but Winston Peters is starting to come of age as Foreign Minister.

That might seem a rather generous assessment at the end of a week when he took a wild swing at the United States.

But the brouhaha died down almost as quickly as it erupted, mainly because one of his priorities is enhancing relations with Washington, not undermining them.

He was the victim of his belligerence towards the media. An impromptu press conference after Tuesday's speech to the Institute of International Affairs saw him ratcheting up the rhetoric when he should have stuck to his earlier script.

No slight was intended. But the incident was a reminder that Peters is first and foremost a political scrapper.

Double-breasted suits aside, he is too long in the political tooth to be remoulded into some safe, benign, risk-averse factotum of the kind the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would prefer.

But it is no longer plausible to suggest that his holding the portfolio is his idea of a bad joke. It is not immediately obvious on first or even second reading, but this week's speech shows he and his advisers have thought long and hard about how he intends putting his stamp on the portfolio, given he must operate within the confines of Labour's foreign policy parameters.

It is a plea to be taken seriously. His desire to make a real difference to Washington-Wellington relations should be making his ministry very happy. It may also prove extremely helpful to Labour in countering National's efforts to make the running on that front.

Speaking after Peters' address, National's foreign affairs spokesman, Murray McCully, likewise stressed his party's "unambiguous desire" for a "better, more mutually respectful" relationship with the United States.

Like McCully, Peters has no background in foreign policy. He may carry an awful lot of political baggage, but none of it taints the priority he has set himself. He can play the honest broker with the Americans in a way a Labour minister could not.

That is to Labour's advantage, given the battle fast developing between him and McCully for Uncle Sam's affections.

Peters will go to Washington mid-year. The advance billing of the visit means he will have to shake some very important hands. Otherwise the trip will be deemed a failure.

It is typical of Peters to raise the stakes so far in advance. But it puts the pressure on his officials to ensure the visit is a success.

That is even more essential as it is now odds-on that Don Brash will go to Washington in late April with McCully, ostensibly for a top-level meeting of business leaders and politicians being organised by the New Zealand-United States Council to push New Zealand's case for a free trade deal with the United States.

As Foreign Minister, Peters will get more access to those that matter. But McCully clearly hopes Brash's status will open doors to National that otherwise might remain closed.

McCully has grabbed his shadow portfolio by the scruff of the neck, forcing the party to confront things like defence spending which have been too long consigned to the too-hard basket.

McCully's personal view is that National must put real money where its mouth is and boost the defence budget. His speech was also highly critical of Labour for failing to provide a strategic assessment of potential risks to New Zealand's security in the form of defence white papers.

It is understood he will also get the party to investigate the feasibility of reviving the Air Force's combat wing.

All this must be music to American ears - but not enough to drown out the jarring sound of McCully trying to steer his party into the position of being 100 per cent behind the ban on nuclear-powered warship visits.

That concession to domestic pragmatism necessarily imposes what McCully describes as "limitations" on how far the Americans will go in normalising relations, particularly in the defence arena.

Labour has maintained the pretence that New Zealand-United States relations are so close to normal that the disagreement over nuclear warships does not really matter.

It does to the Americans. Peters has grasped that.

Frustration with the obstruction caused by the anti-nuclear law prompted the previous American ambassador, Charles Swindells, to suggest a dialogue to find a way through or around the obstruction which has dogged the relationship for two decades.

It may have proved impossible. But nothing could happen until the two countries started talking about the problem instead of parking it to one side.

The Americans waited for some signal from the Labour-led Government that it was interested. None was forthcoming. The invitation lapsed. In contrast, Peters realises some kind of initiative on New Zealand's part is required to revive it. Tuesday's speech tried to offer one - more co-operation between the two countries in the Pacific.

It was a neat dovetailing of Peters' two main priorities - better relations with Washington and more focus from Wellington on struggling Pacific Island nations.

His argument was that both Washington and Wellington had a stake in ensuring stability in the region. But it was New Zealand's contribution to maintaining that stability which helped the US meet its security objectives elsewhere.

That may have been "overlooked" by Washington. Nevertheless, the two countries had a connection of interests in the Pacific which might offer fresh scope for pushing their relationship on to a new level.

All the carefully crafted language went down the gurgler immediately afterwards. But it is unlikely the Americans will have taken umbrage at Peters waving a stick at them. Peters has already struck up a friendship with the new ambassador, Bill McCormick.

The more pressing question is whether Peters is infringing Labour's comfort zones by getting so close to the Americans. When he became Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister was dismissive of any notion that the relationship needed to be taken to a new level, saying New Zealand could "paddle its own canoe".

However, Labour knows it must cut Peters some slack. If he can get an unlikely breakthrough on a free trade agreement, all the better.
The word is that the Prime Minister is ringing him and chatting to him on a frequent basis. She is obviously trying to establish a rapport that can survive the crises yet to come, foreign policy or otherwise.

While that is simply good insurance, Labour has a bigger investment in Peters feeling he is making a success of his job.

If he is not given room to breathe, he will become frustrated. And a frustrated Peters is a dangerous Peters.