Allies again?
January 9th, 2010 at 11:24 am by David FarrarAudrey Young writes:
The United States is poised to drop its ban on military exercises with New Zealand.
The move will be a significant step in a thaw in the NZ-US relationship that has accelerated since Barack Obama became President a little over a year ago.
The Weekend Herald understands it is likely to be announced next week when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, Kurt Campbell, visit New Zealand.
That is basically the end of the “hostilities” which has existed since 1985. It took 25 years, but common sense has prevailed. It has been silly to ban exercises between our military forces, yet have them fighting together in places like Afghanistan.
Presumably this means we are allies again, and not just very very very good friends 
Mrs Clinton announced last year that intelligence-sharing co-operation between the two countries had also resumed.
In a further sign of the fast-track thaw, it is understood that President Obama has twice informally invited Prime Minister John Key to Washington.
The visit is likely to take place within six months.
Add on the progress on the free trade front, and you have to say very successful diplomacy from New Zealand.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:32 am
It might have more to do with us finally beginning to pull our weight when it comes to doing our share when it comes to fighting terrorism.
NZ should be ashamed that we have stood back and let the Yanks, Aussie and the Poms do our bit for us, we sat here under Klark enjoying our relative safety without doing a lot to contribute toward it.
It is a pity that the Yanks did not make getting rid of Zaoui a condition.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Is the thaw due to the election of Barack Obama as US President, or is it due to the election of John Key and National in NZ?
NZ under Labour had a government that used anti-Americanism as a cheap and nasty electoral ploy. The removal of Helen Clark and the relegating of the likes of Trevor Mallard to opposition might have been an icebreaker in itself.
While it is fashionable to ascribe all sorts of miracle cures to Barack Obama’s presidency, NZ’s own election was arguably as much of an impetus to rebuild relationships with new faces here in NZ.
I would be a little more circumspect on a free trade agreement with America though. Obama and many of his fellow travellers are not supporters of free trade by instinct, though fortunately many in the Democrats (like the Clintons) believe in it.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I’m sure there are a number of factors Sushi, a major one being time. Key and Obama may help, but so may no people like Cheney still pulling all the strings.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
All we need now is for NZ to enter the 21st century and allow US ships in and we will be seen as a normal well functioning 1st world country!
January 9th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Much as it pains me to say so, the thaw was assisted by Phil Goff’s negotiations for a free trade agreement. Doubtless however the change of government here has made a difference.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
See, told you we wouldn’t have to give up our Nuclear-free policy…
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Good call Clint
Vote:An Obama administration provides an ideal opportunity for John Key to a deal on Naval Ship visits. The socialists well be a lot less likely to protest the presence of Barak’s ships than George’s.
Considering that no US surface ships are nuclear armed and any surface ships that are nuclear powered are carriers to bg to enter our ports the ban is a non issue. I mean we have Chinese ships in our ports regularly.
The nulear ban was thinnly veiled anti-Americanism,but the perpertrator now choses to live in New York!!
Now she’s gone let’s hope commonsense will prevail
January 9th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
MMM, rather ironical really to think that the most entrenched supporter of the ship ban is now living alongside them everytime one visits New York. Wonder if she can smell that stuff of Lange’s Legend?
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Does this mean our troops are at greater risk for friendly fire? The Canadian troops seem to get hit by American friendly fire a lot.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
No doubt Minto’s motley crew will be protesting Clinton’s visit. Who’s up for a counter protest? ALL THE WAY WITH THE U.S.A!
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
“Hostilities” is code what exactely, we pulled a junivile stunt and fucking sulked in our room?
Stick to what know Farrar, Defence isn’t it.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
B(S)asks: Does this mean our troops are at greater risk for friendly fire? The Canadian troops seem to get hit by American friendly fire a lot.
The Canadians are just about as gutless as us. They expect the US to defend them yet constantly critise them and never pull their weight.
Vote:Yes John; Minto will be down there with his motely crew” when Clinton arrives, abusing the nation that spent 60,000 lives saving us from the Japs and vouch safing to us the freedom of speech – a right which he so constantly abuses!
And Murray “juvinile stunt” says it all!
Clark and Wilson blind sided Lange over the USS Buchanan visit, which Lange had promised to approve. The basis was that it was Nuclear capable. It could have had a bomb in the hold. On that basis every Chinese warship that comes to NZ is Nuclear capable. But we trust them?
Lets get real and enter the 21st century as Clint says and come down aligned firmly with Freedom and Democracy.
The alternative is to slowly fall into the orbit of a country that runs over it’s protestors with Tanks (What think ye Minto?)
January 9th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Yes, I see Hilary Clinton is visiting us on the same trip that she is visiting other important allies like Papua New Guinea.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Reg, when did New York start letting nuclear powered vessels into it’s harbour ?
Vote:Or do you want one rule for the septics another for our ports ?
Your loyalties lie where ?
January 9th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
“The US is poised to drop it’s ban on military exercises with NZ”, oh please, spare me. What has the SAS being doing for the last decade, they certainly not playing canasta with the yanks. NZ has being having military relations with the yanks for years, why even the evil GWB thanked the special forces for their invaluable help in dealing to al qaeda. Military exercises or lack of is window dressing for the masses, in both countries.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Grumpy
Vote:If the Yanks hadn’t saved us in 1942 there would be no Maori Party in NZ tody.
While our countrymen were dying on the slopes of Monte Casino to rid Europe of tyranny young Americans were in the Pacific dying to allow you and me to dissagree today.
New York has no problem with Nuclear armed ships in it’s harbour, and the rules that the US Navy apply to Nuclear powered ships they enforce internationally. I.e if Wellington Harbour was as narrow and busy as the Hudson river the wouldn’t come.
And my loyalties lie with NZ.
I am absolutely convinced that it is in our national interest and essential for the long term continuation of our sovereignty that we are in a security alliance with the US.
Grumpy do you trust China?
January 9th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
I wasn’t joking, how about meeting Minto’s lot with a rally in support of all the U.S stands for ? I’ll bring the loud hailer…
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
JohnB
I will join you.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
big bruv (5187) Says:
January 9th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
JohnB
I will join you.
Well I won’t.
Minto represents a waste of time joke of no significance.
Clinton represents a government I consider the least trustworthy and, probably, the most dangerous force in the world today.
While I certainly have no desire to be on the same island as either if I had to choose which one I’d have in my country I’d take the joke any day.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Mr Empty Tin Man.
Vote:Is it the Democrats you don’t like?
Are you pining for the good old days of GWB like me!
January 9th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Yeah good point Tinny, my stance on it is that I will be turning up to support the USA, certainly NOT anybody called Clinton and sure as hell not the communist fuckwit they have as their President.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Woooohooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
US servicemen back in the country.
Can’t wait to shake one of their hands.
I am totally rapt and stoked.
The nuclear ban was an honourable, dignified and totally outlandish stance for little New Zealand. It probably added to the civility Kiwi’s enjoy overseas.
But I am so glad the Yanks are coming back!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, I’ll be honest; we need the extra revenue, desperately.
But we’re also sticking it to the Al Qaida. We’re saying we’re not afraid of their threats.
Osama already said we’re a target anyway. We helped put a big dent in Al Quaida with our SAS.
Also, I can’t ignore the timing. The police chief has said he doesn’t want to see uniformed officers on road duties any more.
His anti revenue stance is very suspicious at this time when well paid allied service men from Britain as well could be lining govt coffers.
I would estimate we have lost billions to the nuclear ban and it has cost us a huge expense to our standard of living.
I do think Obama is spreading his wings to take us into his fold. I for one want to be a full American ally and stand against the Muslim menace.
It was interesting to hear on ZB that only Democrat administrations have been interested in us.
Condeleesa Rice was not a Democrat.
Did I say woooooohoooooooooooooooo ????????
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Big picture people! Democrat or republican the U.S administration is still to the right of our lot. The point is to show support for the role the U.S plays in the world -pro freedom, pro capitalism. And to show that NZers aren’t all colosal boof heads like Minto – otherwise CNN will show him and his motley crew and it will be assumed internationally that anti-americanism is the NZ attitude.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
When the first nuclear ship comes in it will be intersting to see the demographics appearing to witness the day.
Had Labour returned we would be seeing a stronger communist presence.
To see a real a live American presence to our shores will be glamourous and breath taking.
Just wonder why Redbaiter hasn’t commented but the wrong side of the house is in of course.
I’m sure he’s a teensy weensy bit excited though.
Vote:January 9th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
John B is right
Vote:And with the Dems in it makes it easier to fix as it’s harder for the socialists to oppose.
So if Minto turns up with his megaphone. Out on to the streets we go chanting “all the way with the USA”
January 10th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Nurturing friendship and alliances makes sense, we share a lot of common interests and ideals. But we shouldn’t just roll over and become US patsies.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Exactly Pete
Vote:We make a sovereign decision as a nation to align ourselves with a likeminded democracy strong enough to defend us from any threats to our sovereignty.The stronger the relationship the more weightthe other party is likely to give to an alternative view.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:47 am
The nuclear ship issue was odd – whether they came here or not was probably of little real consequence to either NZ or the US in practice. But the diplomatic consequences blew far out of proportion to that. It was really an issue of whether NZ should be able to make some of it’s own decisions and not be dictated to, even by an ally. The US hissy fit response was way over the top.
I think NZ gained a lot of international credibility over it, and the US looked a bit pathetic. We had a strong relationship with them but they wanted more, almost to be our pseudo rulers.
Whether there is any real risk from nuclear powered or armed vessels coming to NZ or not, surely the NZ public do have a right to know, to be able to make their own choices whether they wanted to be in the harbour at the same time or not?
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 8:51 am
MT_Tinman (577) Says:
January 10th, 2010 at 8:50 am
big bruv (5190) Says:
January 9th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Yeah good point Tinny, my stance on it is that I will be turning up to support the USA, certainly NOT anybody called Clinton and sure as hell not the communist fuckwit they have as their President.
On that we agree.
I’ll certainly welcome the US Navy (and army if they wish) back to NZ, noting that the airforce never really left.
Just keep their untrustworthy pro communist/pro terrorist politicians out.
We already have too many of them.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Sounds very abusive, false and anti-American. You are obviously not pro-USA, just pro fringe nut-job USA.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 10:05 am
If we stay not being allies can we avoid a visit by Hillary? It would be a small price to pay.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Reg, if you read this you will see nuclear ships are now banned from New York harbour in case of accidents.
Vote:http://wirednewyork.com/~edward/forum/showthread.php?p=51276
But you believe we should take the risk that the New York Port authorities will not take.
Trust the Chinese nope, trust the yanks nope I do not.
Let us not forget that the yanks told us we were no longer allies, but then surprise,surprise, they wanted the SAS in Afghanistan since we were in their words close friends.
Like others you seem to have this dream that the yanks would have entered WW2 if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbour or other yank installations.
And like the yanks we should look after our interests first.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
No it wasn’t. You’ll recall Pete that the anti-nuke policy was implemented when the Cold War was still the overriding security factor. It was serious enough to justify a special visit from then Secretary of State George Shultz. It mattered because they didn’t want the “NZ disease” to spread to its other allies. Overnight our military spare parts bill went through the roof and our intelligence dried up. The only thing that saved the relationship was that we didn’t shut down the Waihope listening post. If we had, we would have been completely isolated.
The US were quite justified in doing what they did.
Pete the only international credibility we gained was from peaceniks who naively imagine that the way forward is to lay down your arms in the face of implacable enemies.
In the cold light of day stripping away the sentiment of “the mouse that roared” the policy achieved absolutely nothing in real terms. It has never been responsible for ridding the world of even a single nuclear weapon, it didn’t change US policy one iota, in any way, except with respect to how it behaved toward us. Given that there were absolutely no real benefits arising from it and there were real consequences of it as outlined above, I have often wondered why it has such strong support.
The fact we had “the right” to do it was never in question anyway but such is often raised by its proponents as if it’s some sort of positive attribute arising from it. It’s nothing of the sort. It was a sentimental policy from start to finish, achieved absolutely nothing and has cost us a lot over the years, since we would have had an FTA with the US for years now if we’d never done it, not to mention our military forces would be vastly better equipped.
Liarbore’s military ideas have always been completely fucked in the head and they alone are a good enough reason for no-one to ever vote for them. The only reason why people here don’t know that is because they don’t pay any attention to the military exigencies necessary to operate in this dangerous world.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I don’t recall the “NZ disease” spreading.
I believe that NZ’s strength in standing up to US “bullying” gained us a lot of international karma and created an image as being prepared to act indepently. It has helped create our general international respect.
NZ has never acted in a way that would suggest we would “lay down our arms in the face of implacable enemies”. We have acted with international honour in most of our military decisions, including with Iraq.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Grumpy,
the ban in new York probably has more to do with the geography asnd layout of the port, and the size of nuclear powered carriers compared to say the JFK. The same applies in Sydney with the narrow heads and harbour limiting maneuvering room for a ship that size.
Major US cities like LA, Seattle San Francisco and San Diego have frequent port visits – in fact the last two are or have been home ports for US carriers.
Of course, it could be that people are a lot more relaxed on the West Coast.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
“I don’t recall the “NZ disease” spreading.”
No because it didn’t but the fact they perceived it might explains why they did what they did and that was my point.
“I believe that NZ’s strength in standing up to US “bullying” gained us a lot of international karma and created an image as being prepared to act indepently. It has helped create our general international respect.”
Nations don’t “bully” each other like children in a school-yard. It was entirely legitimate for the US to put pressure on us to remain in ANZUS, just as it was for us to tell them where to go. (Please don’t conflate the word “legitimate” with the word “correct.”) As I said above, our right to tell them where to go was never in question. To argue that the anti-nuke policy was a good idea because we were standing up to a “bully” just underlines my point that it was a totally pointless and needlessly damaging policy. Just exactly what precisely did it or has it ever achieved, in real terms?
“NZ has never acted in a way that would suggest we would “lay down our arms in the face of implacable enemies”. We have acted with international honour in most of our military decisions, including with Iraq.”
No and I never said it did. I said peaceniks think that and they do. Hulun is a peacenik and so was Lange and so are most lefties. The only reason we still have a military is because in this country just because you’re the PM doesn’t mean you have total power to do absolutely anything you want, but while they were in power they did everything they possibly could to de-fang and damage the military during both of their execrable reigns.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Reid, I’m not sure we would’ve had a NZ-USA FTA in the absence of anti-nuclear legislation. At least not one which was favourable regarding farm products, and that is mostly what matters for NZ.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Maybe yes maybe no malcolm. But I remember a senior National Party politician who is in Key’s Cabinet now say at a seminar a few years ago that it was what was stopping us up to then, but he also said he’d deny he said that if his comment ever became public so it’s not something the politicians are prepared to acknowledge either on our side and certainly not on the US side and no, I’m not going to name them.
I do agree with you re: the angle on farm products, that’s a totally separate regrettably intractable issue. Still, once you get your foot in the door, you can expand on it and it’s a matter of first getting that foot in and the sooner the better.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
That’s interesting, Reid. I think the patchwork of FTAs actually make it harder for the WTO to achieve anything on agriculture.
It seems to me that the US makes FTAs with three types of countries:
1] Little countries which hardly matter and have little effect on US interests, but which look good or win some votes.
2] Countries which need rewarding for something (e.g. Australia’s support in Iraq).
3] Countries where there’s no choice as the US wants the reciprocal market access.
NZ hasn’t done anything extraordinary towards the US to warrant a reward and their farming lobby is strong and has good reason to keep NZ farmers at bay.
The problem for NZ is that we really have bugger all tariffs/protections to concede, a disproportionately large agriculture industry and a small domestic for US products (on which tariffs are small to non-existent). It’s just a shame that NZ’s strength is agriculture, which is the big thing that countries like to subsidise and protect.
Vote:January 10th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Message to the US:
You lost, we won, eat it!
Vote: