VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHWL #0380/01 1362333
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 162333Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2791
INFO RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 4408
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHHJJAA/JICPAC HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L WELLINGTON 000380 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR D (FRITZ), EAP/FO, AND EAP/ANP 
NSC FOR VICTOR CHA 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISD LIZ PHU 
PACOM FOR JO1E/J2/J233/J5/SJFHQ 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/16/2016 
TAGS: PREL PGOV
SUBJECT: FM PETERS CLAIMS BRASH LIED ABOUT U.S. SUPPORT AT 
ELECTION TIME 
 
 
Classified By: Charge D'Affaires David R. Burnett, 
for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary: NZ First leader and Foreign Minister Winston 
Peters, cheered on by the Government, has created a furor by 
claiming leaked e-mails prove National Party leader Don Brash 
courted US support for his party's general election campaign. 
 The National Party has countered that Peters and the 
Government are yet again stirring up anti-Americanism for 
short-term political gain. Peters and his office have told 
post that he did not mean to criticize the United States. 
The Ambassador has told Peters his remarks were very 
unhelpful.  Regardless of intent, Peters' latest outbreak 
proves that it will be difficult for New Zealand politicians 
to wean themselves off the anti-American rhetoric of the past 
two decades.  End Summary. 
 
What Peters claimed 
------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Last week, Peters told Parliament that during last 
year's general election campaign, Brash sent an e-mail to his 
colleagues asking whether National should employ  two 
American strategists whom he meet at a lunch in New York. 
Peters claimed the e-mail proved Brash had misled the public 
when he last year dismissed Government allegations that rich 
Americans were funding National's election campaign and 
formulating its policies. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Peters' attack proved a damp squib, as it soon 
became apparent that National had not hired the Americans in 
question.  National foreign affairs spokesman Murray McCully 
also said that Peters' outburst proved that the Government is 
continuing its knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But Brash fumbled 
badly in his initial response to the allegations, raising 
fresh questions among many analysts about his suitability for 
the leadership job. 
Peters' office: "personal motive behind attacks". 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶4. (C) A senior member of Winston Peters' political staff, 
Damien Edwards (protect), told our political analyst that the 
Minister's attack was not directed at the United States, but 
was actually more of a personal vendetta.  Peters believes 
that before the last general election, Brash ignored advice 
not to actively seek to dislodge Peters from his long-held 
constituent seat.  Peters subsequently lost his seat to the 
National candidate and now holds Brash to be personally 
responsible for this.  Edwards claims Peters' disclosure of 
the e-mail was only meant to prove that Brash had misled the 
public, and to thereby undermine Brash's credibility as party 
leader. Peters never meant his attack to be construed as 
anti-American.  Despite rumors elsewhere that the idea for 
this attack on Brash may have come directly from the Prime 
Minister's office, Edwards was careful to emphasize that that 
there was no collusion between Labour and Peters on this 
matter. 
 
¶5. (C) Edwards also claims there's a conspiracy within 
National, where a small but influential faction of senior 
National MPs are quietly working to replace Brash as leader 
with former leader Bill English.  Brash and John Key have 
agreed to a smooth handover of the leadership at a later 
date, says Edwards, and the pro-English faction is aware of 
this arrangement and is keen to prevent it.  Edwards also 
claims that the mystery source of the leaked e-mails is 
someone within Brash's inner circle.  He said this person, 
whose name he did not reveal, could not have acted without 
the knowledge of a senior National MP. 
 
National MP fears subsequent effect on party... 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶6. (C) Meanwhile, National MP and Shadow Attorney General 
Chris Finlayson (protect) told our political analyst that 
Brash's failure to effectively counter Peters' allegation has 
been damaging to his party.   Yet, despite this, Finlayson 
says the mood within the party caucus is not especially 
downbeat. He also claims the leaked e-mails were not an 
inside job, but rather extracted from Brash's laptop when it 
 
was being professionally serviced. 
 
...while Diplomats fear effect on US-NZ Relations 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶7.  (C) But while Peters' NZ First staff may not have 
realized the potential damage to US-NZ ties, the diplomats 
under his leadership were more savvy.  Simon Murdoch, CEO at 
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), called in 
the DCM to apologize for the remarks, and assured him the 
Minister had been made aware they were unwise. Peters also 
told the Ambassador during a private meeting that he had not 
meant his remarks to be anti-American. 
 
¶8.  (C) The Embassy has kept a low profile over the incident, 
with the Ambassador telling the media that we don't get 
involved in local politics.  Most letters to the papers were 
highly critical of Peters and skeptical of his and the 
Government's motives.  One paper ran an editorial agreeing 
with the Ambassador's observation that although untrue, such 
allegations could cause a stain on New Zealanders' 
perceptions of the United States.  The Ambassador also told 
Peters during their meeting that regardless of the motives, 
negative remarks and baseless allegations are noticed in 
Washington. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶9. (C) We're somewhat skeptical about Edwards' accounting of 
the leak.   Although we consider him fairly reliable,  the 
fact is that Peters is traditionally taciturn about 
disclosing the true intent of his political strategy to 
anyone.  Nor does it seem logical to us that a New Zealand 
First insider would be plugged in to the National Party's 
leadership debates. 
 
¶10. (C) National's Finlayson is better placed to gauge 
sentiment within his party. However, as a new entrant to 
parliament the MP may not be privy to all of the maneuverings 
within what is a historically a factionalized political 
party. 
 
¶11. (C) Peters will always be Peters: interested largely in 
his own affairs.  But this incident proves yet again that 
politicians in all parties have grown used to making hay over 
the remaining strains in the US-NZ relationship.  It's 
proving to be a hard habit to break, even among those who 
profess they want to see an improvement. 
 
McCormick 
 
McCormick