Editorial: Clark's insult to Americans unnecessary

Almost exactly a year ago, Helen Clark enjoyed the warmest of receptions in Washington. So welcome was the deployment of SAS troops to Afghanistan that Secretary of State Colin Powell was moved to describe the United States and New Zealand as "very, very, very close friends". Were the Prime Minister to arrive at the White House today, however, the reception would be on the frigid side of frosty. The US Embassy's description of her comments on the Iraq war as "regrettable" spoke volumes of a serious deterioration in relations between the two countries. Concerted rebuilding will be necessary if New Zealand is again to be rated a friend. Worryingly, that task seems yet to have registered with Helen Clark.

Rather than starting the process, the Prime Minister seems intent on playing down her statements. Thus, the comment that the war did not appear to be going to plan was, according to her now, only stating "the bleeding obvious". Likewise, the impact of her view that the US would not have gone to war had Democrat Al Gore been elected President would be "neither here nor there".

Such comments only add insult to injury and add to a maladroit performance by a politician who had previously demonstrated skill and subtlety in diplomacy. Quite possibly, as Helen Clark suggests, people have been too sensitive to some of her utterances. It is quite obvious, for example, that the war has not gone exactly to plan. But she should have recognised that the situation simply heightened American sensitivity to comments that could be construed as critical. And she should acknowledge that the White House has a right to be thin-skinned about her reference to the consequences if Mr Gore had won the presidency.

It is certainly not stating the obvious to say there would have been no war if George W. Bush had been defeated at the polls. How Mr Gore would have reacted to September 11 is a matter for conjecture. No great trauma attended his vice-presidency under Bill Clinton. What is certain is that pronouncements on the supposed superior wisdom of former political opponents do not go down well - even at the best of times.

The correct course for the Prime Minister would have been to remain silent about the war. New Zealand's position - of wanting a United Nations mandate for action against Saddam Hussein and of being ready to play a part in Iraq's reconstruction when necessary - was understood, and accepted. The Prime Minister had indicated she was determined that the parting of ways with Australia would not affect relations between the traditional Anzac allies. Now, she says she is determined the same difference of opinion with the US will not harm that relationship.

Unfortunately, this has already occurred. Her comments, however innocuous she may imagine them, have been picked up by Arab media outlets. Inevitably they are seen as embarrassing to the US. "Regrettable", the term used by the US Embassy, is not one bandied around lightly in diplomatic circles. Helen Clark is left with no option. She must inform the White House that she had no intention of slighting the US President - and then desist from further comment on the war.

It is difficult to see why a politician who is usually adept in international affairs should have been so foolish in this instance. Perhaps she was transfixed by the sentiment of the local constituency. If so, she has erred in ignoring a broader constituency. Even putting aside the potential for a free-trade agreement, New Zealand simply cannot afford to be offside with the US. There is no point in taunting a nation that wields such dominating economic influence. We need not join the conflict but there is every point in urgently rebuilding bridges.

Herald Feature: Iraq war