MORE ON FM PETER'S E-MAIL OUTBURST: AN ANTI-GOFF

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