Dialogue: Diplomatic straws in wind as Goff visits Washington

By TERRENCE 0'BRIEN*

In its first months in office, the Government concentrated upon issues in foreign policy rather than relationships. The emphasis was on the likes of human rights, disarmament and the environment. That now shows signs of changing.

The launch by the Prime Minister of a three-year Latin American strategy "to expand, intensify and realise the potential" of political, economic, trade, cultural, academic and people-to-people connections with that continent was one tangible expression of a shift.

Now the Foreign Minister is readying himself for a visit to the United States and Canada. The Trade Minister has already visited but Phil Goff's call will be the first occasion where the full breadth of New Zealand's American relationship is under a spotlight in Washington.

It is the first exchange, too, since the release in June of the document "New Zealand's Foreign and Security Challenges" which is, itself, the first comprehensive statement of its kind for this country's diplomacy.

That document suggests the status of "a friend but not ally" of the US is now an acceptable position for New Zealand. It emphasises our desire for close ties with the US in the political, economic, trade and defence areas. It addresses, in a non-confrontational tone, the differences with the US over the nuclear issue but does not infer there necessarily remains unfinished business over the nuclear issue between the two countries.

Diplomacy is often an exercise in examining tea leaves and the June document needs to be read with that in mind. It seems to signify, however, a perceptible attempt by New Zealand to move to establish the basis for a genuine post-Cold War relationship with the US.

It remains to be seen, and Phil Goff's visit may shed some light, whether the US, notably the Pentagon, actually sees positive strategic advantage (as distinct from mere resignation) in just such a relationship with a country like New Zealand; or whether the Pentagon, in particular, continues to regard us as a small, benevolent but unregenerate former ally which cannot see the error of its ways.

It might reasonably be asked why the Foreign Minister is travelling to Washington in the twilight days of the Clinton Administration. The fates have undoubtedly conspired and heavily charged timetables (especially for the Americans) probably precluded an earlier dedicated exchange.

There are sufficient issues to preoccupy the exchange - tumult in the Pacific and Indonesia, developments in north-east Asia, the basis for multilateral peacekeeping and peacemaking inside strife-torn countries, and progress with disarmament.

New Zealand has a perspective on all of those issues. But depending on the presidential election outcome, it may have to repeat the effort in the new year. Perseverance, especially for small countries, is a paramount ingredient of diplomacy.

Exactly the same thing goes for Latin America. In the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it will take a generation to broaden our relationship with Latin America, in much the same way as with Asia. That sort of comparison is, or can be, misleading. But it is clear that the new three-year strategy, if it is to produce substantial advantage in both directions, can only be a kick-start replacing previous intermittent efforts. And it obviously relies upon the energy and interest of the Prime Minister, whose personal commitment is abundantly evident.

Whether, in order to ensure its durability, the strategy requires to be "institutionalised" with an equivalent but not carbon copy of Asia 2000 is an open question.

As things stand, there is a range of issues and opportunities - Apec, the Antarctic Treaty, the Valdivia environmental grouping, disarmament and free trade - where New Zealand and Latin American interests and goals intersect.

These sinews are, however, not yet in any way remotely equivalent to the alphabet soup of connections existing for New Zealand with Asia - for example, Asean dialogue, Apec, the Asian Development Bank and a host of United Nations regional organisations in health, agriculture and transport, as well as a raft of professional networks. These have matured and provide the region with foundations for its distinctive brand of cooperation. The strategy can never be simply a case of subtracting effort from one direction (Asia) to pursue another (Latin America). The objective must be to add critical mass for New Zealand diplomacy.

This is neatly illustrated by our emerging involvement in the comparatively new East Asia-Latin America Framework.

Whereas only three Latin American countries are members of Apec, the new framework brings together the 27 major countries of the two regions. It is less concerned with trade but comprises potentially a significant bridge between the two regions that dominate our geography.

Its birth, and New Zealand's involvement as part of its dedicated strategy in both regions, are yet more straws in the wind of a changing world.

The new strategy promises expanded resources for people-to-people links for trade facilitation and for development cooperation. It correctly emphasises a multi-dimensional approach by New Zealand, not one focused on trade alone. It envisages a new embassy in Brasilia next year.

Every journey begins with a first step. What will distinguish this strategy from earlier efforts (or gestures) will be how it is sustained over the medium to long haul. It will be first and foremost up to New Zealand to sustain the effort and keep the faith.

*Terence O'Brien is a teaching fellow at Victoria University's school of politics and international relations.