The Prime Minister said it was "unhelpful" of the Herald to report yesterday that the Government fears that Australia is using its close security relationship with the United States to do a free trade deal excluding New Zealand. "Unhelpful" is diplomatic speak for "unfortunately true." That is, there are official fears that Australia can play its Anzus card to steal a march on New Zealand; we do not know that it is doing so.
The Australian Prime Minister was scrupulously diplomatic on the subject in Auckland on Sunday. "As far as a bilateral agreement between Australia and the US is concerned, we are obviously prepared to see whether progress can be made towards that," he said. But he added that expectations should not be unduly raised. There would need to be "significant give by the US on critical issues." And New Zealand would be kept informed.
That does not sound like anything is moving very fast. The attitude of the New Zealand Government and its advisers is more interesting. The ghost of Anzus refuses to lie down. The US has never used trade in retaliation for this country's refusal to admit nuclear shipping but there have always been those who fear it will do so.
For all the popularity of our anti-nuclear posture, and apparent public indifference to the consequences for national security, there is a persistent sense of unreality about it. President Bill Clinton's departing US Ambassador to Wellington, Carol Moseley Braun, put her finger on it during an interview we published yesterday. In the event of war in the South Pacific, she said, this country would repeal the nuclear ship ban just as fast as it could.
How right she is. The legislation will last just as long as we believe there are no threats to our security. That has been the hypocrisy of New Zealand's pose all along. It is the reason that even its stalwarts, now back in power, are quick to fear further retaliation from those countries that we know will come to our defence should the need arise.
Australia's criticism of New Zealand defence spending is echoed by the United States, and that concern will be heightened by hints that the Air Force is going to lose its strike wing. But there remains no reason to expect retaliation through trade. If Australia or the United States was disposed to reply in that way, there is no reason to be coy about it.
All the signs suggest instead that defence and security associations count for little when it comes to trade deals. Many in Australia are frequently aggrieved that their military loyalty does not bring them any favours in trade. Australian lamb was treated as unfairly as New Zealand's by the Clinton Administration in 1999. Australia seems to have more points of trade friction with the US than we do.
By the sound of it, the Australians are making less headway on a bilateral free trade agreement than New Zealand has made with a five-way pact with Singapore, Australia, the US and Chile. The treaty signed with Singapore was a useful first step and Australia seems certain to join up. The US Government would probably find it politically easier to do a deal with an Asian dimension than to sign up with Australia.
But we should wish Australia luck. Free trade needs to be advanced on several fronts. If Australia broke through US barriers, the way would be open to others under the non-discrimination principles of the World Trade Organisation and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. That is one reason the US is unlikely to do a bilateral deal with the surviving leg of its Anzus partnership.
<i>Editorial:</i> Fear of exclusion when allies talk
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.