}

Friday, March 02, 2007

Should she go?

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark is heading to the US at the end of the month and will meet with US President George Bush during her trip to Washington, DC March 20-21. Some in New Zealand are asking why she’s bothering.


An NZPA story in the New Zealand Herald quotes Clark as saying:


New Zealand and the United States enjoy a strong and mature friendship built on common values and a long history of working together in many areas.

The article offers the opinion that…


The visit signals a continuing thawing of relations, with both countries appearing to concentrate on increased co-operation towards common goals rather than New Zealand's contentious anti-nuclear policy.

Maybe so, but with Bush doing so poorly in public opinion polls and having less than two years left in his administration, some in New Zealand are questioning the point of the meeting. A TVNZ One News story televised last night featured person-in-the-street interviews in which Kiwis said she shouldn’t bother meeting Bush. The web version quotes Clark as saying:


It's as important for us to maintain dialogue with this administration as it will be for us with whoever is the next administration.

Outspoken critic of the US, Green MP Keith Locke, supports the trip—sort of. He says the prime minister should raise subjects on which the US and New Zealand clearly disagree:


If she dodges the important issues of Iraq, human rights and climate change then it would be a waste of time going.

The One News story points out that Iraq is unlikely to be discussed, since the two countries have a fundamental disagreement on the war, but instead discussions will focus on “Afghanistan, regional security in the Pacific, countering nuclear proliferation, trade, and protecting Antarctica.” It quotes Clark saying, pragmatically,


I think it's important to focus on what we have in common and that's very substantial.

I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, no one should do anything to appear to be offering support to a failed presidency on its last legs. However, no matter how dismal Bush’s failures, and despite his increasing personal irrelevance, he still holds the title of “President,” and no New Zealand Prime Minister should pass up the opportunity for a meeting. Personal political beliefs take back seat to national interest.


So, on balance, I think she should go and meet with Bush and focus on the areas where the countries agree and can work together. Save the harder stuff for whoever the next president is, since nothing much can or will change while the current one is there.


On her way back to New Zealand, one of her stops will be in my old hometown of Chicago, where the mayor was just re-elected to a sixth term with 71 percent of the vote. I have no idea if the two will meet.

2 comments:

GayProf said...

It seems like a bit of a silly debate. Perhaps part of this is that they don't understand that the U.S. is saddled with a leader that we can't get rid of (unlike the parliamentary system). Still, it's just a meeting of governments. I mean, unless she is planning on French-kissing him and then selling the U.S. the Stewart Islands.

Arthur Schenck said...

In my experience, many New Zealanders don't get how Bush is still there,so you're probably right. But I think that the only reason this became an issue in the news is that the media love conflict. And Keith Locke seldom misses an opportunity to get in a dig at America, no matter how subtle.