Charles Swindells: Certainly friends but not allies

This is the speech US Ambassador Charles Swindells tried to deliver at Victoria University - hecklers shouted him down - in which he calls for a review of New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy.

* * *

I am pleased to report that the relationship between the US and New Zealand is fundamentally strong, deep and healthy. It is a long-standing friendship that has withstood the test of time and, yes, occasional differences.

There are always some disagreements, sometimes strong disagreements, in any relationship; I will talk about some of those in just a moment.

But for the record let me reiterate that the long-term prognosis is very, very, very good.

I stress this, because all too often when I give these talks, some pundits and commentators miss the forest for the trees and, while focusing on the immediate, seem to forget the fundamentals.

The bottom line is that the US-Kiwi relationship is a good-news story. At its core, it is a relationship built on a bedrock of shared values, culture, language and history. Our two peoples espouse and cherish the principles of democracy and freedom, the rule of law and justice, tolerance and respect.

The relationship is cemented through longstanding and still-growing ties between Americans and Kiwis. It is strengthened through business, tourism and professional, academic and cultural exchanges.

We stand together on many other issues as well, from protecting the environment to our efforts to improve the global free-market economic system.

Our representatives co-operated in launching the World Trade Organisation Doha Development Round. Cancun may have been a disappointment, but I am confident we will continue to work together towards the success of this mutually shared goal.

Trade between our two nations is robust. You send us US$2 billion [$3.3 billion] worth of goods and we send you just a little less in return.

We are your second largest trading partner. That raises a bilateral issue that has been much in the news recently.

We have heard, and we understand, New Zealand's interest in a bilateral free trade agreement [FTA] with the United States. Our position on this issue has been consistent throughout.

So what I am about to say will come as no surprise to you, but bears repeating just the same: the United States Government is not prepared to schedule bilateral trade negotiations at this time.

I know that you understand that many factors go into the decision to seek a free trade agreement. And, naturally, one of the key tests is the potential benefit any bilateral agreement will have for each side.

We need to look at what the benefits would be, not just for New Zealanders but also for the citizens, both producers and consumers, of the United States.

As I've said, trade between us is a strong point in the relationship. But I think it's important to note that it is not helpful to unduly raise expectations about an FTA.

For now, both sides will continue to look at the matter. And regardless of the outcome of the FTA issue, and despite the setbacks at Cancun, I remain confident that free trade will flourish through the WTO, and our trade relations will continue to expand and thrive.

Now, some here have tried to link New Zealand's ban on nuclear-propelled ship visits to the lack of a US commitment on an FTA. We are, of course, aware that recently there has been discussion of this issue in the press and in the community at large.

Arguments by some that Washington has resurrected this issue in a bid to alter New Zealand policy are dead wrong. We understand and respect New Zealand's right to determine its own security policies.

We have never made the nuclear issue a test of our friendship or of our co-operation. Our robust trade and close co-operation in any number of areas bears witness to this.

Yet New Zealand's anti-nuclear legislation does place limits on our relationship. It impedes closer co-operation in some areas. Friends and allies are not the same thing.

Like you, we would like to see the end of this bilateral disagreement. But contrary to the views of some, the United States is not going to just "get over it".

Let me be clear the nuclear issue does not define the US-New Zealand relationship - even such a serious disagreement cannot overwhelm the ties that bind us. But it is not cost-free.

The nuclear issue inevitably colours important policy decisions on both sides, limits the scope for further deepening of co-operation in key areas, and plays an unhelpful role in how we respond to one another.

Twenty years on, a re-examination of this issue could benefit us all. As for events just passed, I tell you frankly that we were saddened by New Zealand's decision not to participate in the liberation of the Iraqi people.

For the first time in our shared history, New Zealanders were not with us in a major military conflict.

Traditional allies - Australians, British and Americans - fought side by side in the cause of freedom and in defence of our common values, as we have many times before.

In the wake of the cowardly attacks of September 11, I personally witnessed the outpouring of heartfelt sympathy from all across New Zealand, and I've repeatedly conveyed our appreciation for your contributions to the liberation of Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism.

Even now, New Zealand men and women are actively participating in the war on terrorism, and your Government has sent a team of engineers to help with the reconstruction of Iraq.

These are important and welcome contributions.

So I hope you will understand if I say to you, with some sorrow, that it felt as if there were someone missing when we finally moved against Saddam Hussein. But that too was your decision, and we respect it.

To the consternation of those who sought to label US resolve "unilateralist", over 40 nations joined with us in shouldering the heavy responsibilities of freeing Iraq as members of the international coalition, while others tried to obstruct those necessary actions.

Some people here, and elsewhere, have suggested that the underlying issue was a choice between the United Nations and the United States. For us, that is a false dichotomy. Let's be clear: it was the members of the Coalition who ensured that the 17 resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council were, in the end, not made irrelevant by the defiance of a corrupt, tyrannical regime.

It is also inaccurate to suggest that the Coalition went forward without regard for Security Council authorisation.

I realise that technical points will continue to be debated, but there is no contradicting the fact that the Coalition took action in support of 17 UN resolutions, including the unanimously adopted 1441, which explicitly offered Saddam Hussein one last chance to come clean or "face serious consequences". He ignored those warnings, as he ignored them all for over 10 years. And now he has paid the price.

But as the Secretary of State recently said, "Now we have to come together ... to help the Iraqi people take their place in the world as a free, stable self-governing country."

We welcome New Zealand's offer, through the United Nations and other organisations such as the Red Cross, to help Iraq and its people.

I applaud New Zealand's latest announcement that it will provide much-needed assistance and training with mine clearing.

I know New Zealand is a generous member of the international community, and I am confident you will join with us in helping to provide the critical support and assistance needed to rebuild Iraq and secure a better future for its children.

Winning the peace in Iraq and the war on terrorism is in the best interests of all of us, and it will take all of us working together in order to succeed. Together, I am confident that we will succeed.

Of course, our relationship is much more than just any one issue. And we can certainly go on as we have for decades now, as very good friends. But I would challenge both our nations to optimise that relationship, to take it to another level.

We don't want to miss any opportunities. To quote the great American poet Robert Frost, I'd like our two nations to walk the road less-travelled.

With honesty, understanding, and hard work, we can create a relationship where the United States and New Zealand are allies in the broadest sense, not merely in security terms, but across the spectrum: in economics, business, science, and the environment.

For this to happen, difficult decisions will have to be made; compromises must be reached. But it is a goal worth working for, and one to which I dedicate my remaining time here in New Zealand. To put it simply, we must let the relationship be all it can be.

As our two nations develop a vision of our respective roles and responsibilities in a world that has dramatically changed over the past decades, we owe it to the citizens of both nations to take that less-travelled road and "not follow where the path may lead ... [but] go instead where there is no path, and leave a trail".

I hope you will join me in blazing that trail.