Fran O'Sullivan: Of Winston and Helen

One of Hollywood's greatest dramas is Mr Smith Goes To Washington. Despite its 1939 vintage, the film, starring actor Jimmy Stewart, is a timeless pastiche depicting a political environment that can corrupt even the most principled human being.

One man, however, Mr Smith, stands up to his venal peers and fights for his integrity in the Senate to remind everyone what democracy is all about. Sound familiar?

Early next year Foreign Minister Winston Peters plans to go to Washington to meet US power-brokers.

By revealing Peters' plan and suggesting it could be the next step in the Foreign Minister's campaign to strengthen the bilateral relationship I'm probably courting another treason allegation.

But Foreign Affairs officials from both sides would not be going to this trouble for mere exchanges of pleasantries no matter how convivial Peters can be when on form.

If Peters is to be taken seriously on Capitol Hill - or even in the White House if he finally gets the full court meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top Bush Administration officials that he wants - he needs to clarify his remit with Prime Minister Helen Clark.

The Bush Administration is already confused over its dealings with New Zealand. This was demonstrated by the embarrassing reception new US Ambassador Bill McCormick got when he said the ball was in (this country's) court over an invitation by his predecessor to move past the Anzus debacle and forge a security and economic relationship for the 21st century.

But after a fortnight on the international circuit, that confusion has deepened as it becomes clear that Peters cannot yet count on the Clark Cabinet's full support for his US initiative.

Clark, and other senior Cabinet ministers such as Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen and Defence Minister Phil Goff, has boxed him in by suggesting New Zealand's bilateral relationship with the US is in fine fettle.

Despite earlier denials by Peters that he intended to enlist Australia's support to help New Zealand strengthen its US relationship, he made just such a request to Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at last week's Apec meeting.

This request may not have seen the light of day if Goff had not blown the whistle on the Downer talks.

Downer already made good on his promise to Peters to put in a good word for New Zealand during a meeting with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and US Assistant Secretary of State Bob Zoellick in Adelaide last week.

The Downer decision to look past New Zealand's nuclear stance - which he personally regards as ridiculous - and talk to Zoellick on our score can not be underestimated.

Zoellick is Rice's deputy and a powerful figure in the US Administration.

His long memory over New Zealand giving the US the two fingers by banning nuclear ships from our ports is also said to have played a part in our failure to get in the negotiating queue for free trade deals with the States - irrespective of Washington fudging.

By throwing his considerable weight behind Peters, Downer - who has a fine appreciation of political subtleties - is also signalling to the Clark Cabinet to move on. But Peters and Downer may be reckoning without Clark's obduracy. Peters' plea to Downer to be "less than neutral" on New Zealand's behalf is likely to stick in her craw.

It's not in her interests for Peters to create a political legacy as the politician who mended the relationship where she failed. Clark has already spent considerable political capital on supporting the US military campaigns - with little to show in terms of strategic payback from Washington.

The left-wing members of her caucus grumble about their failure to score a free-trade deal despite sending the SAS to Afghanistan. Clark's vision is one of independence on the global stage, whereas Peters seems to be opting for the interdependent stance similar to that of Australia.

At issue is whether a small country that must piggyback on bigger players to do its bit on the world stage - particularly in military affairs - can truly claim to be independent.

This conflict of basic visions is at the heart of the internal "government" conflict over the US relationship.

New Zealand's relationship with the US is by its nature asymmetrical.

But unlike the Howard Government which takes the initiative to stay squarely in the frame with Washington by investing strongly in their mutual interests, the Clark Government has so far shied away from having a full-on discussion with Washington over "the dead cat on the table" which is the nuclear issue.

Australia is an ally of the US but neither the Australian nor US governments pretend there is a relationship of absolute equals.

There is recognition by both sides that there needs to be constant reinvestment in the relationship to ensure it stays relevant to both side's national-interest concerns.

But it is also underpinned by the Anzus Treaty which the Australian Parliament somewhat symbolically invoked or the first time in 50 years after September 11.

Peters is right to try to overcome the impasse - but so far Clark is not playing Jean Arthur to his Jimmy Stewart.

Roll on the movie season.