ENGAGING AN MP CRITIC OF AFGHAN COMBAT OPS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 WELLINGTON 000223 SIPDIS SENSITIVE STATE FOR STATE FOR EAP/ANP PACOM FOR J01E/J2/J233/J5/SJFHQ E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV KDEM PREL AF NZ SUBJECT: ENGAGING AN MP CRITIC OF AFGHAN COMBAT OPS Wellington 179 ¶1. (SBU) Summary. On July 15, Charge lunched with freshman Green Party MP Dr. Kennedy Graham, a former NZ and UN diplomat who recently questioned the legitimacy of Operation Enduring Freedom in the New Zealand Parliament. At lunch, Graham eloquently displayed his extensive knowledge and understanding of global affairs, particularly climate change and international law. An evident multilateralist, Graham remained strong in his assertion that a government must, above all, consider international law when embarking on national action to advance global security and revealed he has sponsored legislation to that end. Graham may be a moderating influence on his frequently radical party. His contribution to party discussion could yield more pragmatic policy positions which could, in turn, allow for closer relations with NZ's two biggest parties, the more mainstream National and Labour. The meeting with Graham was highly positive and established the makings of a constructive relationship. End Summary. Background: Green Party MP Disputes Legality of OEF -------------- -------------- ¶2. (U) On June 16, new Green Party MP Dr. Kennedy Graham posed a number of critical questions to Foreign Minister Murray McCully in the NZ Parliament on Operation Enduring Freedom's (OEF) legal mandate. The next day, Graham gave a speech in Parliament where he developed the underlying thesis of his questions the previous day, that because OEF presently does not operate under a specific UN resolution it is, in actual fact, illegitimate. Graham thus asserted that the GNZ is duty bound not to commit any combat force in support of OEF (Reftel Wellington 179). The GNZ is presently considering whether to accede to a USG request to send additional forces to support combat operations in Afghanistan. Affirms Primacy of International Law -------------- ¶3. (SBU) On July 15, Charge and Political Assistant had lunch with Graham where the topic of Afghanistan came up. Graham conceded that the challenge in establishing a secure and stable Afghanistan is complex and demanding. Nevertheless, he steadfastly, yet evenly, re-asserted that OEF presently operates under an imprecise mandate and that only an explicit UN resolution can provide correction. The former NZ and UN diplomat Graham, predictably, proved his internationalist credentials and demonstrated that he is likely to become one of the NZ Parliament's strongest advocates of multilateralism. He underscored his OEF position by arguing that strengthening the rule of international law, through national action as provided for and in the UN Charter, is the most effective way of promoting international and national security for all nations and their peoples. [Note. Graham teaches International Law at Canterbury University on a part-time basis. End Note]. ¶4. (SBU) We reminded Graham that OEF acquired its legitimacy via others means aside from a specifically-drafted UN resolution. He conceded this point, particularly acknowledging the importance of Afghan Government consent, though noting a concern that the consent government not be perceived as a puppet. This, however, did not alter Graham's opinion that multilateral consent and recognition (read UN),particularly of an international operation such as OEF, are indispensable. Graham stressed, however, that he did not wish to embarrass the GNZ over this issue nor score political points. Rather, he stated that he believes the primacy of international law in developing ways to advance global security a vital issue and that it should get a public debate in a reasoned and civil manner. Sponsors Bill to Outlaw Non-UN Sanctioned Armed Action -------------- -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Graham revealed that he has drafted a Member's Bill (legislation personally sponsored by a MP) that seeks to prohibit NZ from "unlawfully" engaging in armed force against other countries. The legislation is called the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. The stated purpose of the bill is twofold: to ensure that the use of armed force by NZ is always in conformity with international law and in particular the UN Charter; and to protect NZ leaders from external pressure to commit the NZ Defence Force to any illegal action overseas. As drafted, the bill will require NZ to observe its binding obligation under the UN Charter not to commit an act of aggression, as qualified under General Assembly Resolution 3314, and make it a criminal offence in NZ law for any NZ leader to commit an act of aggression. The Bill has yet to be introduced into WELLINGTON 00000223 002 OF 003 the House and there is no certainty that it will get blind-picked from the 'ballot' box during this parliamentary term. Strong Climate Change Advocate -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Graham spoke fluently and at length about international climate change policy. He revealed that he may attend the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. If so, he will most likely travel to Copenhagen as part of the NZ Green Party delegation rather than as part of the official NZ delegation. Graham noted that he attended the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 as a UN official and stated his belief that the Rio Summit represented a missed opportunity to address the climate change challenge early on in a bold and collective manner. He retains, however, a level of optimism that the Copenhagen Conference will yield positive outcomes, though he believes they may be short-term. Graham also noted that he believes that China is more sophisticated in its thinking on climate change than India and is therefore more likely to change its behavior towards climate change-related policy and emissions levels. ¶7. (SBU) Graham was forthright in his assertion that NZ should be bolder in advancing its climate change position in international fora. He disputes the conventional theory that the means by which a country can and should address climate change is inextricably linked to its own economic development, an argument advanced by NZ's current National-led administration. Notwithstanding this position, Graham spoke favorably of the GNZ's two climate change ministers, Dr. Nick Smith and Tim Groser. Engaging the Green Party -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The overarching purpose of the July 15 lunch was to establish the beginnings of a warm and respectful relationship with Graham. By lunch's end, an open dialogue and a mature relationship with Graham going forward were highly probable. He appreciatively accepted an offer to turn to Post for any assistance he made need in the future. Post has made an effort to develop relations with key members of the Green Party, which historically has been a strong critic of U.S. policy. On June 22, Charge placed a highly successful call on the Green Party's new co-leader, Metiria Turei. Recently, Post helped secure a place on the International Visitors Program for the Green Party's co-leader, Dr. Russel Norman, to look at U.S. efforts to advance sustainable development. [Note. Graham reported that the now-returned Norman got great value of the program and was particularly impressed with the contribution the commercial and NGO sector respectively make to sustainable development in the U.S. End Note]. Comment: Potential to Moderate Green Party Policy -------------- -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Given his background, Graham is unsurprisingly an articulate and thoughtful individual with an extensive and pragmatic world view. Though a committed multilateralism, he does not appear to be bogged down in the left-wing dogma which imbues many of his Green Party colleagues. Not withstanding his disagreements with the NZ and U.S. governments, Graham has the potential to be a moderating voice within the Green Party, synonymous with taking radical positions on many issues. He revealed that he does not always subscribe to the majority view of his party's caucus. Graham noted his caution at acting in a "shrill and extreme" manner when arguing a political point, which he believes diminishes the possibility for rational debate on important issues. Graham's careful and reasoned parliamentary questions and speech on OEF were testament to his behavioral preference within the political sphere. ¶10. (SBU) It remains to be seen, however, how much influence Graham will have on his party (presently he has the lowest ranking of the Green Party's nine MPs) or on its relationship with both the National Party and the Labour Party. Nevertheless, his mere presence within the Green Party caucus is likely to lend to its discussion on policy and positions a sense of perspective and evenness than has largely been absent since the 2005 death of former party co-leader Rod Donald. This may allow the National and Labour a greater sense of comfort in dealing with the Greens (Graham has familial links with the National Party. He is the brother of Sir Douglas Graham, a much respected former National Cabinet Minister of the 1990s and esteemed party elder). Graham's extensive diplomatic experience means that the Green Party now has in its parliamentary ranks a bonafide foreign policy expert for the first time since it came into being in the late 1990s. Graham's frequent fond recall of his time in U.S. as a NZ and WELLINGTON 00000223 003 OF 003 UN diplomat during the lunch meeting and his post-lunch statement of admiration of President Obama and his approach to diplomacy and governance indicated that he is likely to be one, if not the paramount, pro-American Green Party MP. End Comment. KEEGAN