John Armstrong: Clark returns fire in US clash

Memo to Washington: if you thought Helen Clark was going to take her public ticking-off from the State Department lying down, then think again.

Her statements that the war on Iraq would not have happened if Democrat Al Gore had been in the White House and that the war did not appear to be going to plan were deemed "regrettable" by the Americans.

Strong language in diplomatic speak.

Too strong for Clark, who told the Herald it was an extraordinary over-reaction.

And she fired a message back to the State Department saying as much.

"I take great exception to any suggestion that New Zealand is ticked off. We're just not going to tolerate that."

Clark accepts that the Americans took offence at her comments.

She also has no problem with them expressing their concern, which was done privately through official channels earlier in the week.

What has upset her is the subsequent use of the word "regrettable" and the public manner of its delivery - through the United States Embassy in Wellington without first informing Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials.

Clark's frustration is palpable.

She says there had been a difference of opinion between Wellington and Washington on how to handle Iraq from the very beginning.

That difference had been expressed at the New Zealand end in very restrained terms and no offence was intended by the reference to leaders.

Statements of the obvious about wars not going to plan were not intended as reflections on anybody. They were intended as statements of fact.

However, offence had been taken and she was sorry about that.

But stepping up the language to "regrettable" was unnecessary.

Her advice to Washington? Don't jump at ghosts.

Has the episode soured New Zealand-United States relations - as National and Act claim? Or is it just a passing storm?

By week's end, New Zealand and American diplomats were talking.

To some extent, the ruckus has helped clear the air.

Two things have happened since the war began.

The Americans have understandably become ultra-sensitive to anything that might be construed as criticism.

At the same time, the perception has grown that Clark has hardened her anti-war stance since the tanks rolled across the Iraq-Kuwait border two weeks ago.

Clark insists this is not the case. But the perception grew on the back of comments that the war was unjustified "at this point" and the Cabinet's subsequent refusal to have any truck with a US-run, post-conflict occupation force because that did not fit New Zealand's definition of peacekeeping.

As far as National and Act are concerned, her remark that the war was not going to plan was a step too far.

Clark was rubbing the Americans' noses in it and contradicting assurances from the Pentagon that everything was on track.

Worse, her statement was splashed across anti-war Arab media.

She had wittingly become part of a propaganda battle almost as important as the fighting itself.

In her opponents' eyes, the absence of any verbal support for the so-called coalition of the willing was variously seen as Clark either reverting to anti-American type or auditioning for a high-level job at the United Nations.

More likely, Clark's positioning against the war is a means of skewering National and Act, who have taken a risk in supporting an unpopular conflict.

The Greens believe Clark has astutely read the public mood which is suspicious of America's motives in invading Iraq and horrified by the resulting civilian casualties.

Clark's comments on the war are tailored to tap into this sentiment without going over the top.

What she is saying may be "bleedingly obvious".

But it strikes a chord.

However, the puzzle is why she is doing this, given that she was already well on side with majority public opinion before the outbreak of hostilities.

By annoying the Americans, she has little to gain and much to lose.

Some in the Clark camp believe she may have felt constrained to keep quiet while delicate pre-war diplomacy was running its faltering course.

Once war was under way, she, like other leaders of Western democracies, felt they could be more frank.

Rejecting the advice of a Herald editorial, Clark herself says the Prime Minister can't be expected to stay silent on the major international issue of the day. To do so would be an abdication of leadership.

"But, look, I turn on BBC world radio day after day and I hear leaders saying directly very critical and attacking things about the United States. Has that ever crossed my lips? No."

She had gone the extra mile to try to help the relationship through a very obvious difference of opinion.

Right through the protracted discussions at the UN, she had bent over backwards to say it was good the US was involved in diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.

For that, she had endured protest placards and graffiti calling her a warmonger.

She had tried to put the best face on how the Americans were handling things.

But the moment they walked away from the Security Council, they took away the one "fig leaf" she had left for being helpful to them.

The upshot of the US and Britain ditching the UN was a possible shattering of the post-World War II order. "We take it incredibly seriously."

As a result, New Zealand is working hard with "like-minded" countries to put "Humpty back together". And like-minded means the Canadas, the Norways, the Swedens, the Mexicos and the Chiles - not France and Germany, which have drawn American wrath.

Clark is scheduled to meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair early next month.

His strong statements about the need for UN involvement in post-conflict Iraq gels with her bottom-line of restoring the UN's credibility.

"They [the British] don't want to be left alone to handle the aftermath, that's the long and short of it."

She also has another message for Washington: normalising relationships post-war is not a one-way process.

Despite imminent victory in Baghdad, the US has its work cut out to restore longstanding friendships and the "wise heads" around the State Department know that.

It is time for Washington to stop shooting the messenger and start listening to the message.

Herald Feature: Iraq war