VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHWL #0389/01 1390545
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 190545Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2801
INFO RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA IMMEDIATE 4414
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHHJJAA/JICPAC HONOLULU HI IMMEDIATE
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI IMMEDIATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L WELLINGTON 000389 
 
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: 05/19/2016 
TAGS: PREL PGOV NZ
SUBJECT: MORE ON FM PETER'S E-MAIL OUTBURST: AN ANTI-GOFF 
PLOT? 
 
REF: WELLINGTON 380 
 
Classified By: DCM David R. Burnett, 
for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary:  Chris Trotter, New Zealand's leading 
left-wing political analyst believes the recent attack by New 
Zealand First leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters on 
National Party Leader Don Brash was actually aimed at Trade 
and Defense Minister Phil Goff. In a recent article in the 
"Independent Financial Review," Trotter contends that Peters 
wants more control over the Foreign Affairs Portfolio, which 
is still largely Goff's in fact, if not in name.  The Foreign 
Minister and NZ First Leader's outburst also serves the 
purpose of Labour's Left, particularly Cabinet Minister 
Trevor Mallard, who want to undercut Goff because he 
represents the party's more conservative wing.  Trotter's 
account tracks closely with the views of US-NZ Partnership 
Forum participants Charles Finny and Murray McCully, who 
believe Prime Minister Clark wants to undermine the forum 
because of its links to her political rival Goff.  End 
Summary. 
 
Peters wants foreign policy control 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) As noted reftel, Peters recently disclosed a leaked 
email that Brash sent his election team last year seeking 
advice on whether to employ two American strategists.  Peters 
later said he made his claims to prove that Brash, who had 
previously denied U.S. involvement in National's campaign, 
was not a trustworthy leader.  But Trotter points out that 
Peters made his outburst on the very day that the Australian 
media reported A/S Hill's positive take on the US-NZ 
relationship.  According to Trotter, this means that Peters 
was either putting domestic politics ahead of his 
responsibilities as Foreign Minister or was sabotaging the 
diplomatic advances made by Goff during his recent trip to 
Washington.  Either way, Trotter says, Peters does not 
deserve his foreign minister position. 
 
¶3. (U) Trotter writes that it was notable that Goff, not 
Peters headed the mission to Washington. He thinks that 
despite the trade-orientated agenda, Peters' absence was 
intended to serve as a signal to Washington that in reality 
Goff "remains this country's real foreign minister."  Trotter 
notes that Goff, and indeed Brash, with whom Goff presented a 
united front in Washington, emerged with  kudos as a result 
of the mission's success in  setting a better tone for 
diplomatic relations with the U.S.  Peters had declared when 
he became Foreign Minister that he would place a priority on 
improved US-NZ ties. Goff's Washington success robs Peters of 
credit for that achievement. 
 
¶4. (U) Goff emerged from the Washington talks as the sort of 
Labour politician the U.S. can do business with, Trotter 
says. Goff's conservative credentials were further enhanced 
when he mused publicly about inviting an American warship 
into New Zealand waters.  Trotter argues that Labor's Left -- 
including Mallard -- by contrast presents a major barrier to 
restoration of full military and intelligence co-operation 
with the U.S.  The anti-nuclear policy is one of the Left's 
few genuine political accomplishments and in many ways is the 
glue that binds Labour's  competing factions. Healing the 
rift with the U.S would "spell disaster for Labour party 
unity" by unleashing an internal ideological struggle. 
 
¶5.  (U) Trotter criticizes Mallard (and Labour) for once 
again rehashing anti-American sentiment just when Goff had 
finally succeeded in rehabilitating New Zealand in the eyes 
of the U.S. after last year's anti-American election campaign 
accusations.  Trotter believes that Mallard and his left wing 
colleagues do not want Goff, the leader of Labour's Right, to 
be the one credited with this rehabilitation. He believes 
that by weakening Goff, Mallard's chances of succeeding Clark 
as party leader could be enhanced. 
 
Comment 
-------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) As a left-wing commentator, Trotter's criticism of 
the Labour Party's anti-American rhetoric is striking.  A 
pragmatist, he is clearly worried about the effects of 
anti-Americanism on his party as well as his country. 
Trotter views foreign policy as mainly a bipartisan issue, 
and he is therefore uncomfortable with the ideological bent 
of Mallard and his cronies. 
 
¶7.  (C) Trotter is also by implication criticizing PM Clark, 
as Mallard is probably her closest Ministerial associate. 
This tracks with the views of close Embassy contact, former 
MFAT official, and US-NZ Partnership Forum participant 
Charles Finny, who says Peters' recent outburst was done at 
the behest of the Prime Minister.  Clark tried to sandbag 
Goff's selection as Mount Roskill's Labour candidate in his 
first electoral campaign.  She certainly does not want Goff 
to be her successor, Finny says, and is therefore out to 
undermine the US-NZ Partnership that is now associated with 
him.  National Party Foreign Affairs spokesman Murray 
McCully, another Forum participant, agrees.  He says that the 
PM declined a request by Forum organizers to contribute a 
pamphlet to the Forum congratulating the participants and 
wishing them well.  Both Clark and Mallard are relatively 
anti-American, so taking the legs out of the partnership 
satisfies them for substantive as well as political reasons, 
Finny and McCully say. 
McCormick