Dialogue: Time to rekindle an old friendship

By STEVE HOADLEY*

Today is an occasion for Americans to reflect on their country's 224 years of eventful history. But American Independence Day also offers New Zealanders the opportunity to consider the significance of the United States to their own future well-being.

To the surprise of visiting Americans, the US occupies an ambiguous place in New Zealand popular perceptions and provokes anomalous policies. For example, American culture is caricatured as materialistic even as New Zealanders consume it avidly and visit its source as tourists, artists, scholars, officials and political leaders.

This ambivalence is reflected in polls. Forty-eight per cent of New Zealanders in a 1999 survey expressed positive views towards the US, and only 18 per cent negative. But America still ranked only fifth in positive feelings, behind Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Britain, and equal with Ireland. Nevertheless, it ranked ahead of Germany, Japan, South Africa, France, China and Serbia.

American trade policy has been criticised for inconsistency and protectionism, most recently over the lamb tariff. This simple view undervalues the behind-the-scenes work of New Zealand officials who are resolving disputes and securing beneficial agreements with their American counterparts, and New Zealand traders who are taking advantage of global liberalisation achieved by American initiatives.

Despite our enthusiasm for exotic new markets in Latin America, Eastern Europe and a revitalised Asia, we should keep in mind that the US is New Zealand's main source of investment, tourism, scientific and technical knowledge, general information and entertainment from abroad.

It ranks second only to Australia as a buyer of our exports, having overtaken Japan last year. Add to this the Canadian and Mexican markets, often accessed via American ports and distribution networks.

American foreign and defence policies are decried as intrusive and over-reliant on military alliances and nuclear weapons. But successive New Zealand governments have been able to pursue idealistic arms control, peacekeeping and humanitarian endeavours only because a stable security framework has been underpinned by benign American hegemony.

The US remains the ultimate guarantor of New Zealand's security and, just as importantly, of the security of our trading and diplomatic partners around the world. America with all its alleged defects is still preferable to China or India or Russia or France or Iran as world sheriff, or to no sheriff at all.

Nevertheless New Zealand policy anomalies persist. President Clinton, when he visited last September, offered to raise the tempo of military interaction with New Zealand in support of multilateral peace operations. He did not require New Zealand to abandon its nuclear-free policy.

The Government responded by cancelling a generous contract with the US Defence Department to lease combat aircraft to replace our ageing Skyhawks. And the Defence Policy Framework paper issued by the Government last month did not mention the US once, whereas the importance of Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and several South Pacific states was stated explicitly.

It is perhaps a blessing that New Zealand does not loom large on the American trade, security, or cultural horizon. Few Americans have taken offence at New Zealand's persistent scepticism, nuclear-ship-visit ban, defence shortfalls or trade-access complaints, so there is no public pressure for official retaliation.

The typical American is well disposed towards New Zealand, and puzzled rather than embittered as to why we don't welcome recreation visits by US Navy ships.

American officials are well aware of New Zealand's military-equipment deficiencies even though they avoid public criticism. But since the end of the Cold War, New Zealand has not been regarded as vital to regional security. Australia has become the principal US ally in the region.

So New Zealand's defence policy drift can be tolerated, and anything useful New Zealand does, such as in the Balkans, the Gulf, Bougainville or East Timor, is seen as a bonus.

Not everyone is content with this syndrome of inattention, misperception and occasional scepticism. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade recently issued its own paper, New Zealand's Foreign and Security Policy Challenges. In it, the US features prominently and positively.

The ministry's paper was written by officials with long experience and extended policy horizons. In contrast, the defence paper reflected direction by politicians and was derived from Parliament's 1999 report, Defence Beyond 2000, authored by former Act MP Derek Quigley.

US State Department officials and the American ambassador continue to state their willingness to work with New Zealand on a number of issues of mutual concern. These include arms control, peacekeeping, trade liberalisation, human rights and the control of crime, disease, and pollution.

The Fulbright Scholarship programme is one of dozens of educational, scientific and cultural exchanges that continually bring New Zealanders and Americans together productively.

One hopes these, and extensive private sector economic ties, will transcend the aloofness manifested by those for whom the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and the anti-nuclear movement still condition perceptions of the US.

By forward-looking initiatives, we can replace inattention with appreciation and scepticism with trust in arguably our most important bilateral relationship. It is time to move on.

* Dr Steve Hoadley is an associate professor of political studies at the University of Auckland.