Anzus will be the ghost at the feast

By Terence O'Brien

There can be no one who doubts the significance of the bilateral encounter between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of New Zealand on our soil. This is, after all, only the second visit of an American President.

Admittedly, the reason that brings President Clinton here is the Apec summit. That reinforces the point that Apec is, despite its economic agenda, important for its political dimension. In one sense the meeting, like others scheduled here, notably between the American and Chinese Presidents, may be counted a product of chance because it just happens to be our turn as Apec host. But chance and luck are as much a part of foreign policy as calculation and planning.

Assuming that economic issues are to be covered in the Apec discussions, what other considerations are relevant to Mrs Shipley's meeting with the President?

The Clinton Administration, to its credit and despite more important issues on its agenda, has sought to improve the United States' relationship with New Zealand. The meeting here places a seal upon the efforts both countries have made.

In the Cold War it was believed that the true mark of any relationship between two countries was the quality of their joint security. In the multifaceted, globalising world of today that single yardstick is no longer as true, even if it once may have been.

The Anzus treaty will be the ghost at the feast. New Zealand has been active in military alliances in the past when danger threatened, and will likely be so again if or when danger emerges. Military alliances are therefore pragmatic instruments. It is not dishonourable to regard them in that light, always providing New Zealand remains dedicated to support for regional and global peace efforts. In recent times the country has given enough proof that it is not a self-indulgent free-rider.

The ability to train and exercise with US forces, as a friend and not an ally, would enhance our defence professionalism. That point will no doubt be registered persuasively with President Clinton and his team. But we should not suggest that the continued absence of such an opportunity means our contribution to peace support is rendered ineffectual.

A properly equipped and constituted New Zealand Defence Force with clear goals can offer a meaningful contribution to peace support in the circumstances as they exist, and are likely to exist. President Clinton would not deny that.

His welcome decision to better the political relationship is recognition that to confine effective partnership with the United States only to those countries that are in operational military alliances with Washington would restrict his options and possibilities.

From our standpoint, the evolution of external policies in recent years, especially in Pacific East Asia, has proceeded credibly on the basis of our being friend but not ally with the Unied States. Nuclear policy will presumably surface in discussion between the two leaders. This country's policy reflects the essential logic of nuclear non-proliferation which is the central issue, both countries agree, of the global security agenda.

Our policy strengthens the United Nations non-proliferation norms. That raises problems for the American doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence. Mrs Shipley will want to give the President her assessment of the national mood. But polite agreement to respect each other's different viewpoint is the most that can, or should, be expected.

It will be important that the meeting reaffirms the extent and depth of shared values between the United States and New Zealand. From our side, the aim should be to underline that the role this country can play in support of shared objectives stems from its situation as a small, mature Pacific democracy which is unthreatening, impartial and with a problem-solving mentality.

It is, of course, a statement of the obvious, that we are not part of the Atlantic community of nations. Developments in Western Europe are serving, however, to create an impression that membership of that community now defines what it is to be democratic and Western in today's world. Indeed, Nato expansion is sometimes depicted as a means to enlarge the boundaries of democracy.

It is not surprising that there will be times when New Zealand will not want Atlantic nations to speak, decide or act for the whole community of states. Diversity is the hallmark of international relations and that includes relationships and interests between democracies.

Belief in the international rule of law is a traditional, shared interest between the United States and New Zealand. Indeed, the world owes a considerable debt for American energy and imagination that created the rules-based international system in the 20th century.

But as we approach 2000, there is evidence of American disillusionment. The UN has, it seems to Washington, grown unmanageable and an obstacle to American interests.

New Zealand could assure President Clinton that it is prepared to do its bit in restoring effectiveness to a system that is the core of rules-based order. The subject of East Timor is bound to feature in the meeting. New Zealand will want to urge American involvement in any UN- endorsed action, not only because of the need to put East Timor back on the road to independence, but as a means, too, of reasserting commitment to the UN.

All this suggests that the visit of the leader of the world's most powerful country is an opportunity for us to reflect upon our own place and identity as we prepare to welcome Mr Clinton.

* Terence O'Brien, a former diplomat, is a commentator on international affairs.