FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS U.S. SHOULD RECOGNIZE NZ'S

C O N F I D E N T I A L WELLINGTON 000167

SIPDIS

NOFORN
SIPDIS

STATE FOR D (FRITZ),EAP/FO, AND EAP/ANP
NSC FOR VICTOR CHA
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISA LIZ PHU
PACOM FOR JO1E/J2/J233/J5/SJFHQ

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV NZ
SUBJECT: FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS U.S. SHOULD RECOGNIZE NZ'S
REGIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS


Classified By: Ambassador William McCormick,
for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C) Summary: According to Foreign Minister Winston
Peters, his recent public observation that the United States
should appreciate New Zealand's contributions in the South
Pacific was not meant to be a criticism. Peters assures us
that he was calling for both sides to recognize the positive
aspects of our ties. Peters is being a bit disingenuous, as
he delivered his remarks -- as an unscripted portion of a
seminar speech -- in characteristic firebrand style. But the
Embassy believes Peters genuinely wants to improve the
bilateral relationship, and he'll be more likely to succeed
in getting domestic support for his efforts if he is not
perceived as an unquestioning supporter of U.S. policies.
End summary.


2. (SBU) New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters'
February 21 speech to the New Zealand Institute of
International Affairs was intended to outline GNZ views on
New Zealand's Foreign Policy objectives over the next five
years. However, in off-the-cuff remarks, Peters said it was
regrettable that the United States does not appreciate all
that New Zealand is doing in the South Pacific. He said, "We
have the ability to influence in a positive way the views and
opinions of one quarter of the globe out here in the Pacific,
all the way beyond Tahiti to Easter Island. Our connection
with the Pacific in dealing with the United States is
important, and I suspect it may be something that they have
for so long overlooked but in which we have placed so much
effort and time that we should remind them of what we've done
and why we're doing it, so that they might better understand
how 4.2 million people do matter in this world." In follow up
questions from the media, Peters also said he would raise
this point in Washington when he visited there, probably
mid-year.


3. (SBU) This being New Zealand, the local media completely
ignored the rest of Peter's thoughtful speech and focused on
his having laid down a marker with the United States: stop
focusing on the nuclear issue and pay attention to the
positive aspects of the bilateral relationship. Most press
coverage and several academic commentators agreed this was a
useful message, although at least one observer remarked that
it should be New Zealand's national interests -- not its need
for praise -- that dictate the country's South Pacific policy.


4. (C) And of course the media also glossed over the
observation in Peter's speech that the country's foreign
policy priorities over the next five years would place equal
emphasis on bilateral, regional, and multilateral
engagements. Peters' declaration that bilateral
relationships are as important as multilateral institutions
is significant, as many Kiwi officials and ordinary New
Zealanders consider the UN to be a quasi-government to which
New Zealand should declare allegiance. Although he noted the
world would be much worse off without the UN, Peters stressed
the need for UN reform to reflect today's world and he
pledged New Zealand's constructive participation towards this
goal. Peters also said that there is room for both the
United States and New Zealand to get more benefit from their
bilateral ties, which would come from recognizing our common
interests and supporting each other on key issues where
possible. Peters added that this was evident in his meeting
with A/S Hill during the APEC Senior Officials meeting, as
A/S Hill recognized that New Zealand's position on North
Korea and its contributions to counter-terrorism efforts and
regional security support U.S. objectives.


5. (SBU) The Embassy played down efforts by the New Zealand
media to declare Peters' remarks a strong criticism of the
United States. The Ambassador issued a statement that simply
said, "As Admiral Fallon noted when he was here recently, the
United States deeply appreciates the work that New Zealand
does when it comes to critical security and stability issues
in the region. I look forward to discussing this and other
matters with Minister Peters in our continuing
conversations." The Prime Minister and Defence (and former
Foreign) Minister Phil Goff both supported Peters' remarks.
However, in a meeting late last week, Peters himself told
Centcom Commander General Abizaid that his comments about the
U.S. lack of recognition of New Zealand's efforts in the
region had been "misread." He also stressed this to the
Ambassador at a one-on-one lunch on March 1. Peters said his

intention had been merely to show that the South Pacific in
general falls under the radar screen and recognition of New
Zealand's efforts in the region is therefore overshadowed by
other world events.


6. (C) Comment: We believe Peters is sincere in his desire
to improve US-New Zealand relations by exploring new areas in
which to cooperate. Although the press almost ignored it, in
remarks after his speech Peters also criticized the UK for
overlooking the South Pacific despite Britain's historical
legacy in the region. But Peters' ultimate objective was
likely not to criticize us or Britain, but rather to prove
that although he is out of the Cabinet he is still the
Government's true messenger on foreign affairs issues. One
local journalist remarked that Peters' speech also shows that
despite the views of many, he is capable of handling his
portfolio and anxious to leave his mark. Whatever the case,
Peters' attempts to improve the bilateral relationship will
get a fairer hearing from NZ officials and the Kiwi public if
he is seen as being a bit skeptical about us.
McCormick