When we lived in New York a decade ago we used to have a kind of kitset itinerary for visitors depending on how long they stayed. We had the two week tour, the five day tour, and even the intensive two day tour. The latter involved a hurtle up the Empire State, the early ferry to the Statue of Liberty, Met, Broadway show. It was fun, kinda exhausting, but a bit superficial in all honesty.
It feels like John Key has been on the diplomatic equivalent of the two day tour. It is not that often I found myself in agreement with Fran O’Sullivan but her column in Saturday’s Herald zeros in on the celebrity approach to our international relations from Key. Fran says
When Key first became PM his boyish “aw shucks” approach to meeting the Queen, or even departing US President George W. Bush at Apec, was endearing.
But with nearly a year as PM under his belt he should now be notching up some foreign policy achievements.
This is a good point. Key’s lack of foreign policy experience was only a minor issue at the election, and his generally affable nature seemed to get him off on a good footing in international meetings. But, as we all know, that is fine for the first date, the next ones need to have a bit more going on if the relationship is to flourish. Fran continues
Instead our Prime Minister is now on the verge of being seen as a celebrity-obsessive himself, a political groupie of the first order who will not let a chance go to embellish his Rolodex by opportunistically hunting down major stars like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair to learn leadership skills from the masters.
For a former “master of the universe” who has made buckets shoving around the currencies of many of the countries whose leaders he is now pallying up to, it is all a bit cringe-making.
Fran goes on to say she has seen Key do something substantive on foreign policy, but to be honest there is scant evidence of that in his statements, despite a nicely crafted, but light on detail speech to the GA that has been phisked by my colleague Phil Twyford, here.
Fran also raises questions about why New Zealand is returning the SAS to Afghanistan as the rest of the world contemplates reducing their contribution.
New Zealanders should care that Key has committed the SAS special forces to Afghanistan at a time when other US friends and allies are on the verge of withdrawing their troops.
Other political leaders now believe the Nato-led war against the Taleban will prove just as intractable as the Soviets’ doomed foray into Afghanistan.
Key and Obama have apparently had serious talks by phone on Afghanistan. But our Prime Minister won’t tell us the real substance in the secret letters he has exchanged with the US President.
We shouldn’t have to wait until or if an SAS soldier comes home in a body bag before expecting answers to the hard questions.
Certainly many of those I spoke to in DC and elsewhere were taken aback NZ is pushing on with something that even the Obama administration is not yet confident about.
There is a lot more to being a PM than taking photos and meeting people, and I am with Fran here, the celebrity approach needs to end sometime very soon if NZ is to retain its credibility on the world stage.
Nice piece.
Key’s ‘little boy’ routine extends to the Afghanistan commitment. Not once have I seen him express any real distress over sending NZ citizens there. I wonder if he’ll be so ‘gee whiz’ when the black bags start flying home…
Key’s ability to set up a constructive engagement with Obama on foreign policy issues such as Afghanistan is a reasonable achievement.
Perhaps not quite as impressive as Clark’s ability to work with Bush – even to the extent of sending teh SAS to Afghanistan when Bush requested.
But that was Labour under Clark when Labour showed a grgeater understanding of such issues.
Key at present doesn’t match Clark but he’s doing a better job than the present Labour leadership would of working with the US.
And what will the price be Neil. And for what in Afghanistan.
what was the price Labour paid for working with Bush?
At least Key is engaging constructively with Obama, perhaps not as challanging a task as Clark working with Bush, but something clealy well outside Labour’s present capability.
Neil – at the time sending in the SAS looked like the right thing to do. We did it twice after that – the last time after extensive debate. From 2005 the judgement has been the objective in Afghanistan was not worth the likely deaths of young kiwis.
And you don’t trade potential bodybags for photoshots with any US President.
Mr Mallard it wasn’t wise for Ms Clark to refer to body bags and I don’t think it is in your case either.
Neil – “Key at present doesn’t match Clark but he’s doing a better job than the present Labour leadership would of working with the US.” Can you define “working with” for me…I don’t see evidence of “working with” – Key’s approach appears to be “trying to please”…although I suspect he’s trying to please a Bush-era US, not an Obama-era US.
Neil- I am not sure how you can make that judgement in terms of how Labour could or would work with the Obama administration. Put it this way lots of countries who work very well with the US are questioning the Afghan commitment. Not to mention key players in the Obama Administration itself. Check out this story from New York Times today
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html?_r=1&ref=politics
The primary reason for sending troops is to prevent the country from again being used as a terrorist training camp, with which to attack western values from…our values, not just the US or UK’s.
If Labour now feels that it is in fact to help prop up the Karzai government and some of the objectionable laws being proposed by it then it is sadly using that theory for political pointscoring. The Islamic-based customs and traditions practiced in that country would continue regardless of the establishment of democratic institutions. By sending the SAS the previous NZ government was in effect sanctioning their conservative Islamic culture.
What your now saying is that we should pull our weight in combating climate change but not in preventing terrorist safe havens? We are potential victims of both.
“I am not sure how you can make that judgement in terms of how Labour could or would work with the Obama administration.”
very simply, the National govt like the present British Labour govt support Obama over Afghanistan and the NZ Labour Party does not.
but if you are trying to suggset that on this issue reasonable people might reasonably disagree then Labour might just want to cut the “slave to the US” rhetoric.
No one actually believes that Labour would have refused Obama’s request for the SAS, denying the obvious while at the same time displaying a complete lack of inderstanding of the situation in Afghanistan is a strange thing to do.
Can you not bring yourself to type “fisked”?
I stand here today humbled by the task before dofus kamas, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our cheap dofus kamas. I thank President dofus power leveling for his service to buy dofus kamas, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.