Dialogue: Personal touch wins every time

Serious negotiation will be almost impossible when Helen Clark meets George W. Bush, but there is still much to be gained, writes STEPHEN HOADLEY*.

Prime Minister Helen Clark's invitation to the White House is a winner. But against the odds.

Her Labour predecessors, David Lange, Geoffrey Palmer and Mike Moore, never stepped where she will tread. And Helen Clark will go to the head of a queue of Prime Ministers and Presidents waiting their turn to sit down in the Oval Office with President George W. Bush.

Two-thirds of them will never make it. Helen Clark will.

And the timing is good. When President Bush appealed for assistance in the war on terrorism, Helen Clark's Government responded promptly with a concrete military contribution. Now it can be hoped that the new spirit of strategic co-operation will spill over into better trade relations.

Access to the United States market, vital to New Zealand's prosperity, could be eased by a free-trade agreement or at least an exemption from the new steel tariff.

Does the Clark-Bush meeting portend a new, warmer phase in New Zealand-US relations? Will it ease outstanding trade disputes and the nuclear-ship-visit impasse? Or will the two leaders just politely recount their disagreements?

Let's consider the negatives, then the positives.

First, Helen Clark's visit to the US comes after more than two years in office, suggesting lack of urgency. She has travelled to numerous other countries, most visibly in Latin America.

An intriguing speculation holds that it was John Howard's successful visit last year, reviving the idea of an Australia-US free-trade agreement, that yanked the Government's attention back to Washington. Is New Zealand playing catch-up to Australia again?

Second, the bilateral history is not propitious. As a backbench MP, Helen Clark spearheaded the refusal to allow the USS Buchanan to visit New Zealand in 1985.

With the support of Jim Anderton, now Deputy Prime Minister, and Phil Goff, now Foreign Minister, her strict nuclear-free initiative precipitated American withdrawal of military co-operation with New Zealand.

The three supported legislation banning nuclear-powered ships, which institutionalised New Zealand's defence estrangement from the US.

When she became Prime Minister, Helen Clark cancelled the F-16 lease deal and the upgrade of the Orion surveillance systems previously contracted with the US.

The US was downgraded in New Zealand's security outlook, and was not even mentioned in the Defence Policy Framework issued in June 2000.

For the past two years, Government ministers have publicly criticised the US on issues such as missile defence, tariffs, subsidies, treaties on arms control, the environment, human rights and policy on the Middle East and Kosovo.

The National Party has averred that an anti-American bias colours the world view of Government leaders.

On their side, US officials over the years have expressed puzzlement about why New Zealand is not more realistic on defence and security, in particular its banning of nuclear-propelled ships when a scientific inquiry in 1992 showed them not to be hazardous.

Thus a history of mutual scepticism persists between the two Governments.

Third, and maybe consequently, Helen Clark's visit is neither a state visit, entailing a presidential dinner, nor a working visit with a presidential lunch. It is just a visit. Its scheduled duration is 30 minutes, which limits the number of topics that can be raised and the depth to which each can be pursued. Serious negotiation is almost impossible.

Fourth, Helen Clark herself has cautioned against expectations of a breakthrough. The greatest prize, a decision to start free-trade talks, is deemed beyond reach this year.

While President Bush favours free trade agreements, and a leading US economist has reported positively on the possibility, resistance by the US dairy lobby and the US Senate and electoral-year caution may stay the President's hand. His recent imposition of safeguard tariffs on New Zealand steel is not a good sign.

Helen Clark has reaffirmed New Zealand's strict no-nuclear policy. In contrast, the US reliance on nuclear weapons appears as great as ever, as indicated by the leaked Nuclear Posture Review.

Clearly President Bush is committed to developing a national missile defence system and to widening the war on terrorism. On these topics the two leaders can do little more than agree to disagree, then try to move on.

So, why bother? Because sound diplomatic reasons outweigh these negative observations.

In addition to meeting the President, Helen Clark will meet the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, the Trade Representative and US business leaders. She will build on visits already made by Mr Goff and Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton and on her previous encounter with President Bush in Shanghai.

In preparation for the visit, her officials have been in close contact with their US counterparts. Both sets of officials have anticipated the issues their leaders will raise and worked up position papers on US and New Zealand interests, often in consultation with each other.

Each country's media have given the other increased coverage. This has not only raised the profile of New Zealand in Washington but also strengthened relations at the working-officials level.

Good personal relations are an investment in the future. Although mid-level officials conduct policy daily, often by fax, phone and email rather than face-to-face meetings, it is still leaders who initiate and prioritise new policies.

Leaders set the tone for their officials. And leaders empathise with other leaders, particularly when they can meet them in person. Empathy and encounter lead to respect and to positive policy.

So by meeting Helen Clark in person, US leaders will get to know an articulate Prime Minister of a progressive democratic country that shares many values with the US. The 1980s stereotype centring on anti-nuclear protest can be transcended.

New Zealand and US leaders have more to talk about than trade disputes, nuclear and missile disagreements and whether to attack Iraq. Despite varying emphases, they share a commitment to enhancing a rules-based trading and investment system by means of the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation talks. And to Asia-Pacific stability. And to arms control, both nuclear and conventional. And to enhancing human rights, democracy and global justice. And to a sustainable environment.

Helen Clark and Mr Bush can, and will, find much to agree upon. Collaboration for mutual benefit may well follow.

Is it worth the effort and cost? One cannot calculate a bottom line for meetings between leaders. Personal diplomacy's benefits are long term and intangible. But leaders and diplomats know they are real.

My guess is that most New Zealanders will applaud Helen Clark's visit to the White House and wish her well whatever the cost.

* Associate Professor Stephen Hoadley teaches US and New Zealand foreign policies at the University of Auckland.