Will the Wellington Declaration signed this week lead to a new era in co-operation between New Zealand and the United States?
Headlines trumpeting the melting of the ice are a little overblown. In fact the relationship has been strengthening steadily for the last five years helped by new attitudes on both sides, strong advocacy from a range of stakeholders and most particularly from a changing world order. If Peter Jackson were directing, “Made in Wellington” might be a fitting title for this latest movie in a continuing series.
The Wellington Declaration may look like a thin piece of paper and it is, but the signatures at the bottom make all the difference. New Zealand is no longer an ally of the United States, at least not in the formal treaty sense. The recent Defence White Paper makes it clear we are not about to walk backwards into the future but it emphasises the need for the closest possible alignment with the United States. Having our cake and eating it too has long been a tenet of New Zealand's foreign policy. The problem is our partners do not necessarily see the world in the same way. In Washington allies count, and differently from friends, even very, very, very good ones. That's why New Zealand needs the Wellington Declaration, as a framework for the political relationship and as a springboard for the relationship's further development.
Other commentary during the Secretary's visit suggests that the Wellington Declaration has ended the 25 year nuclear standoff with Washington. Again the reality is that over time this has become less of a burden. The two countries have been building a highway around this particular rock in the road. It would be naïve to think that the United States does not care anymore about this issue. And, even with this new commitment to strategic partnership, and with increasing defence co-operation, there are still restrictions on military exercising even if they are less rigorously administered than previously. The Secretary has referred this matter to her colleague Defence Secretary Gates. Let's hope this match made in Wellington can address this issue once and for all. At the first US NZ Partnership Forum held in Washington in April 2006 an American participant asked – if we can fight together, how come we can't train together? That remains a very good question.
The Declaration does not say much about New Zealand's other favourite topic – trade. That's not altogether surprising given that the document's purpose is to be high level and aspirational and negotiations to secure a free trade agreement are taking place in the context of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). It is a mistake to view TPP as a second best option when it comes to New Zealand's trade ambitions. While TPP is complex and may take time to conclude, the case for a bilateral FTA is not straightforward either given the inevitable opposition to agricultural imports from protected lobbies in the United States. In so far as TPP presents a much bigger prize, carrying with it the hopes for a pathway to the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific, the goal of securing an ambitious outcome and selling that to Congress and to domestic consitituencies is made perhaps not easier but more of a priority for the Administration. The Secretary's visit was not ultimately about trade. Even so to the extent that the broader relationship is the best it can be, and New Zealand is seen as contributing to shared global interests, that can only be helpful to economic interests especially when push comes to shove of ratifying a trade agreement.
The Wellington Declaration then has symbolic value beyond its immediate content. The text speaks of a relationship which is “flexible, dynamic and reflects our fundamental beliefs and aspirations”. Ultimately if it is to be of any use the Declaration should help both parties achieve together what they could not achieve on their own. While the United States cannot solve all of the world's problems it is clear that few can ever be properly addressed without the United States. From New Zealand's perspective being counted as “a strategic partner” of the United States is less about dancing to an American tune than about engaging with the United States, where our values and interests coincide, to address pressing problems and issues. This can be seen most particularly in our own Pacific neighbourhood, which is singled out for priority action in the Declaration.
In her remarks in Wellington the Secretary was careful to say she looked forward to filling in the detail of what the Declaration might mean in practice. The work streams established under its (non-nuclear) umbrella will be even more important than the declaration itself. They will involve Ministers, officials and a range of other stakeholders. Foreign relations today are far too complex and too multi-dimensional to be handled by diplomats alone. In Christchurch in February the fourth US NZ Partnership Forum will provide an opportunity for a range of high level government, business and community leaders to discuss in further detail how the lofty aspirations of the Wellington Declaration can be brought to life. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Minister McCully will both participate. The Partnership Forum will have before it the outcome of a new study into the relationship - “Pacific Partners” - which is being prepared by the Center for Strategic and Independent Studies (CSIS) in Washington and the NZ Institute of International Affairs in Wellington.
From “Once were allies” to “Made in Wellington”, from the capital of the world's remaining super power to the coolest little capital in the world, the Secretary's visit has again served to narrow the distance between the United States and New Zealand. Old differences are giving way to new challenges. The political backdrop of the US/NZ relationship is about to be given a thorough make-over by actions arising from the Wellington Declaration. Even if New Zealand and the United States are no longer joined in holy matrimony, the eclaration tells the world – and Congress especially – that ours is definitely more than a casual relationship.