VZCZCXRO1157
PP RUEHSR
DE RUEHWL #0086/01 0851900
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 261900Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5816
INFO RUEHXP/ALL NATO POST COLLECTIVE
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 5481
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 0077
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE 0538
RUEHSV/AMEMBASSY SUVA 0855
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0731
RUEHBN/AMCONSUL MELBOURNE 0134
RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY 0820
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHMHBA/COMPACFLT PEARL HARBOR HI
RUEKJCS/OSD WASHINGTON DC

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 WELLINGTON 000086 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/26/2019 
TAGS: MARR PREL AF NZ
SUBJECT: IS NEW ZEALAND OPEN OR OPPOSED TO ADDED AFGHAN 
DEPLOYMENTS? 
 
Classified By: Embassy Wellington Charge David J. Keegan. Reasons E.O. 
12958, 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
¶1. (U) March 25, New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully 
gave his first public speech on the bilateral relationship 
with the United States (full text emailed to EAP/ANP). He 
started with his overall assessment: 
 
"Relations are, in my judgment, in better shape than we have 
seen in 25 years. That has been the result of careful and 
constructive effort on both sides over recent years." 
 
Reviewing parallel efforts to address economic recovery and 
free trade, he added: "In time, it is my hope that the new 
administration will reaffirm the US commitment to the 
(TransPacific Partnership) agreement." 
 
¶2. (U) He then turned to Afghanistan. He noted New Zealand's 
decision to extend current deployment of a PRT to Bamyan 
Province to September 2010. Regarding additional deployments, 
McCully said: 
 
"The new (U.S.) Administration has made no secret of the fact 
that they would like others to do more. And I expect other 
contributors to the International Security Assistance Force 
will also want to discuss the way ahead with us. While, of 
course, we will give consideration to the views expressed by 
our friends, it is important to note that New Zealand has 
already made, continues to make, and has just extended, what 
in our terms is a very significant commitment to the 
Afghanistan effort. . . So we will keep the situation under 
review and monitor developments carefully as we move forward" 
 
¶3. (C) Immediately before presenting his speech, McCully told 
me that his statement on Afghanistan had been crafted to be 
"open." No decision has been made. None is being signaled. 
Prime Minister John Key has been thoroughly briefed on this 
issue and discussed it with McCully several times. The 
purpose of the statement, McCully insisted, is to give the PM 
"head room" to enable him to make a decision either to commit 
additional resources or not. 
 
¶4. (C) As McCully heads to Washington for meetings April 6 
and 7, he said that New Zealand fully understands it will be 
asked by the U.S. to make an additional commitment. Before 
deciding on its response, New Zealand will wait to see what 
commitments NATO countries agree to make. He made it clear 
that New Zealand believes the first responsibility for making 
additional commitments lies with them. At the same time, New 
Zealand will be completing its own defense and Afghanistan 
review, and Foreign Affairs and Defence will prepare a 
recommendation to the PM. 
 
¶5. (C) After the speech, David Taylor, Director of the 
Americas Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
Trade (MFAT) repeated to me that the statement on Afghanistan 
was designed to give the Government "head room." That meant 
not only keeping the Government's deployment options open, he 
said. It also meant allowing for an orderly withdrawal from 
Afghanistan if the mission there fails, a possibility he 
asserted everyone acknowledged. 
 
¶6. (C) While McCully insisted that no decision was being 
signaled, a banker who attended the speech and a noted 
academic who read the speech have both told me that they 
clearly understood McCully to be saying that New Zealand 
would commit no more troops to Afghanistan. The senior 
political writer at the Dominion Post, Tracy Watkins, 
headlined the same conclusion. 
 
¶7. (C) Comment. Which should we believe - McCully's 
assurances or commentators' negative conclusions? The key may 
lie in a recent Australian opinion poll. In another aside, 
McCully asked if I had noted a poll published that morning 
showing that two-thirds of Australians oppose additional 
deployments to Afghanistan. If that same mood begins to 
appear here, it could undermine the interest of the avowedly 
pro-American National Government in New Zealand to make 
additional commitments to Afghanistan. If we want to 
encourage a New Zealand deployment, we will need to find 
public diplomacy opportunities to explain the choices in 
 
WELLINGTON 00000086  002 OF 002 
 
 
Afghanistan to New Zealand media. We will also need to work 
directly to encourage PM Key and FM McCully. 
KEEGAN