VZCZCXRO9100
PP RUEHCHI RUEHFK RUEHHM RUEHKSO RUEHNAG RUEHPB
DE RUEHWL #0757/01 2871849
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 141849Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4803
INFO RUEHZU/ASIAN PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION PRIORITY
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 4991
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 0270
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE PRIORITY 0512
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 0667
RUEKJCS/OSD WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 WELLINGTON 000757 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/ANP; OSD FOR JESSICA POWERS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV ETRD MARR NZ
SUBJECT: NATIONAL'S FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY:  NO 
SURPRISES/FEW DIFFERENCES FROM LABOUR 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary.  The opposition National Party released 
its foreign policy discussion paper on October 2.  National 
announced that the policy disputes (read:  nuclear issues) of 
the last two decades are over, and that New Zealand needs a 
bipartisan approach to foreign affairs; the only differences 
between Labour and National will be in emphasis and tone. 
National agrees to maintain New Zealand's non-nuclear 
legislation and support a smaller, more niche-oriented 
defense force.  National will pursue free trade agreements, 
particularly with the United States, Japan and Korea.  Labour 
confined its criticism to the omission of Iraq references in 
the paper.  Some media pundits have accused National of a 
"Labour Lite" policy approach, but National officials claim 
that both Labour and National have moved more closely to one 
another in recent years.  National officials offer that 
foreign policy will not be a major factor in the 2008 
elections, nor should it as both parties genuinely do share a 
similar approach -- the real differences that will decide 
next year's election hinge of domestic economic and social 
issues.  End Summary. 
 
National's Foreign Policy Discussion Paper:  Labour Lite? 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
¶2.  (U)  The National Party on October 2 issued its foreign 
policy discussion paper declaring that both major parties now 
share a bipartisan approach to foreign affairs and that the 
old policy divisions of the last twenty years are over.  To 
that end, National accepts New Zealand's non-nuclear 
legislation and independent foreign policy path. National 
will continue to support a smaller, more niche-focused 
military while also allowing that New Zealand will 
occasionally have a role in international security affairs. 
Moreover, the party agreed that it would not support 
reinstatement of the air strike wing of the New Zealand 
Defense Forces, although the party does not rule out 
increased financial support for the military.  A detailed 
defense white paper would be issued only in the event 
National wins the 2008 elections.  (Note:  The lack of detail 
on defense matters is likely due to National sensitivity to 
accusations from Labour that the party underfunded the NZ 
Defense Forces during the 1990s.  End Note.) 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  National's shadow spokesmen on foreign policy, 
trade and defense were frank in conversations with the 
Embassy that there is little appetite among the majority of 
New Zealand voters for a reversal of New Zealand's "Clean, 
Green, and Nuclear-free" international image, so skillfully 
branded by Helen Clark and Labour.  But National rejects 
criticism that they have simply adopted Labour's foreign 
policy and repackaged it in their recently released 
discussion paper.  National's Trade spokesman Tim Groser told 
us that just as National has come to accept the anti-nuclear 
legislation, they claim that the idea of a niche-based 
approach to their armed forces derives from a National party 
proposal, which Labour then adopted.  National leader John 
Key has explained that the differences between the two major 
parties would be in emphasis and tone, but it is time for New 
Zealand to have continuity in its foreign policy and a 
bipartisan framework. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  The National paper notes that Australia will 
remain New Zealand's key bilateral relationship, yet there 
are several references to improving relations with the United 
States and the need for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the 
U.S.  National proposes to move the existing US-NZ 
Partnership Forum from a Track II discussion to more formal 
Track I inter-governmental dialogue.  National spokesmen tell 
us that they are increasingly concerned over the large 
numbers of New Zealanders departing each week to live and 
work in Australia; a statistic they blame in part on the 
US-Australia FTA.  National will consider an FTA with the 
United States as a key objective, and officials realize that 
an FTA may be more doable in a multi-lateral formula as 
opposed to a bilateral one. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  Another area where National intends to focus 
attention is on assistance to the southern Pacific Islands. 
Foreign policy spokesman Murray McCully has told us that 
National wants to rethink New Zealand's development and 
assistance programs to ensure that the financial 
contributions have a positive impact on the economic 
 
WELLINGTON 00000757  002 OF 002 
 
 
sustainability of these countries.  New Zealand, says 
McCully, has been pouring money into the region with little 
effect.  Some Polynesian islands now have larger populations 
living in New Zealand than on their home islands, as McCully 
stressed at a recent lunch with the diplomatic corps. 
 
Government Criticism Subdued 
---------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  Both Defense Minister Phil Goff and Foreign 
Minister Winston Peters later issued statements critical of 
National's paper.  Although given the general agreement 
between the two parties' platforms in the foreign affairs 
arena, there was little to condemn.  While Goff welcomed 
National's acceptance of what he called key Labour policies, 
he accused John Key of inconsistency in National's foreign 
policy approach, saying that such flip flops are indicative 
of an inexperienced and untrustworthy head of government. 
Both Goff and Peters complained that National's paper omitted 
any reference to the Iraq war and the role of the United 
Nations in international affairs.  John Key responded by 
saying that references to the Iraq war had not been included 
because the war was over -- a statement that Labour pounced 
on to reiterate that Key's knowledge and judgment are 
inadequate to manage defense policy let alone the affairs of 
a country.  Key tried to repair the damage but it was a clear 
gaffe.  Without defending Key, however, media analysts combed 
their files and found that both Goff and Helen Clark had 
issued statements welcoming UNSC resolutions in the aftermath 
of the Saddam Hussein's fall and looking ahead to possible 
GNZ contributions to Iraq reconstruction.  The issue quickly 
died, much to the relief of both parties. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  National officials tell us that they wanted to put 
the foreign policy paper out early to get this issue, which 
hurt National badly in the last two elections, off the table. 
 They are especially wary of Labour reviving its earlier 
mantra that National is too pro-American.  While Clark's 
government has moved far closer to the U.S. since the last 
election, National still remembers Labour accusations that it 
was being funded by "American bagmen" looking for National to 
reverse the nuclear ban. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  National wants to be able to focus the upcoming 
political debate on the issues that will most matter to the 
2008 election outcome:  domestic economic and social issues. 
National maintains that the country's ability to generate 
wealth and economic growth is being stymied by Labour, 
doctors and skilled technocrats are leaving the country, 
crime rates are up, and average families are seeing wages 
stagnate while the cost of living rises.  These are the 
issues that National hopes to campaign (successfully) on, and 
they would just as soon leave foreign policy matters aside. 
 
 
KEEGAN