Editorial: US relations a victim of politicking

Opinion

There was, arguably, no lower point in the last election campaign than Trevor Mallard's out-of-the-blue pronouncement that the National Party's campaign was being bankrolled and run from the United States. The implications, if the claim was correct, were considerable. Foreigners were interfering in this country's domestic politics, and if National were elected, New Zealand soldiers would soon be fighting alongside the US in Iraq and the anti-nuclear policy would be a thing of the past.

At that time, Mr Mallard was unable to offer any incriminating links to support his allegation. Eventually, he was forced to express regret for "knocking the ball on". But now, in cahoots with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he is having another try. Unfortunately for them and, more significantly, New Zealand's relations with Washington, this attempt is equally derisory. It is far from irrelevant that Mr Mallard's original smear was delivered at a time when Labour's election campaign was faltering. And that the latest tilt came as the Government tried desperately to deflect attention from the embarrassing leak of confidential Cabinet papers to Telecom.

Winston Peters suggested an email penned by the National leader, Don Brash, and leaked to him, showed Dr Brash had misled the public when he labelled the allegation of American involvement in his party's campaign a "thundering lie". By any yardstick, it does nothing of the sort. The email, written by Dr Brash to senior party colleagues in 2004, merely contemplated hiring two "expensive" Republican Party strategists. As it transpired, the two were never employed.

National should have been able to ridicule Mr Peters' claim with some degree of ease. He had, after all, provided nothing that came near to providing evidence of "interference from abroad to change the country". But Dr Brash's ineptness at a press conference on Tuesday provided the allegation with a totally unwarranted traction. It also persuaded Mr Peters to persevere with a campaign that devalues the standing of our Foreign Affairs Minister. In effect, this country's international interests have fallen victim to short-term politicking.

The US has bent over backwards to accommodate Mr Peters. His undiplomatic plea to Washington earlier this year to give New Zealand greater respect for its work in the Pacific was answered with a note of fulsome appreciation from a visiting Assistant Secretary of State.

What the Americans think now was indicated by a rare observation by the US Ambassador, William McCormack. "When things shake out later on and they find out we didn't do what was suspected of us ... the stain still remains," he noted. The implication was that, at the very least, the US believes Mr Peters and the Government have jeopardised relations. They may also conclude that a strong strand of anti-Americanism was at work.

The stain referred to by Mr McCormack could reveal itself shortly when Mr Peters visits Washington. Enhancing relations with the US must be one of his priorities. He must build on the progress made by Trade Negotiations Minister Phil Goff at last month's US-NZ Partnership Forum, and the hint from the Bush Administration of better defence relations. In large part, the success of Mr Peters' visit will be gauged by the hands he gets to shake. Some senior figures in the White House must now be considering his and Mr Mallard's ill-considered and unsubstantiated claims of US interference in New Zealand's domestic politics. And pondering whether that is the mark of a Government with which they are happy to deal.