Report  

(Please click here for the PDF file of this report.)

The United States-New Zealand 2006 Partnership Forum

Held on April 20-22, 2006

in Washington , DC  

We are both “western nations” on the Pacific Rim .  We share language, values, approaches to government, markets and law, and a deep commitment to democratic ideals, a clean environment, individual freedom, and human rights.  We are significant trading partners; we invest in each other, and form joint ventures.  Despite our common heritage and commercial links, however, we live 7,000 miles apart, have different histories, are vastly different in size and power, and play very different global roles.  These differences engender different perspectives and sometimes different viewpoints.  So that is why we are here – to examine different approaches, to understand and learn from one another, and to broaden and enrich the collaboration of this unique friendship.  John Mullen, Welcoming Statement

Summary

                

            Rt. Hon. Jim Bolger                                                                            Hon. Clayton Yeutter

            Distinguished delegations from New Zealand and the United States gathered in Washington for the first ever Partnership Forum April 20-22, 2006.  Co-Chairs Jim Bolger and Mike Moore for New Zealand and Clayton Yeutter and George Mitchell for the United States all actively participated.  The Forum was organized by the US-NZ Council and its New Zealand counterpart the NZ-US Council.  It was privately funded by 13 corporate sponsors, listed in Annex A.

In addition to the Co-Chairs for New Zealand, both former Prime Ministers, the NZ delegation included two Cabinet Ministers, three opposition MPs, including the Leader of the Opposition, heads of government departments and agencies, and many CEOs, Presidents, Chairs, and Board Members of NZ companies, trade associations, and other entities.  Led by former Agriculture Secretary and US Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter and former Senator George Mitchell, a bipartisan group of US participants included two Under Secretaries, present and former Assistant Secretaries of State for Asia and the Pacific, former members of Congress and US Ambassadors, high level corporate executives, senior partners from law firms, heads of trade associations and think tanks, and academics with high-level government experience.  Each country’s ambassador to the other participated throughout.  Full lists of the US and NZ delegations are in Annex B.

Discussion, not speeches, was the essence of the Forum, which was conducted under the Chatham House Rule, and therefore essentially off the record.  The purpose of the Forum was to engage New Zealand and American leaders and opinion makers in furthering understanding and friendship between the two countries, bilaterally and in the context of the Asia-Pacific region.  Experts discussed foreign policy, trade, investment, finance, security, agriculture, labor, the environment, and regional issues such as the importance to both countries of the rise of China and India , economic integration in the 21st Century, and sound energy policy.  Delegations with “session speaking privileges” were limited to approximately 40 from each country, though informal conversation at social events, luncheons, and breaks appeared to match the scope, depth and intensity of the plenary sessions.

            Without exception, the participants considered the Forum a great success.  Evaluations from participants, sponsors, and both governments have been highly favorable.  Press in New Zealand was thoughtful and very positive (see below).  Because of the Chatham House Rule and the purpose and structure of the Forum, there were no formal outcomes or recommendations.  Significantly, however, participants agreed to hold a follow-on Forum in New Zealand late in 2007 (the NZ spring).  The general sense of all surveyed was that participants left energized, enthusiastic about the event, reinvigorated about the US-NZ relationship, and determined to continue to broaden and deepen the ties between the two countries.

Venues, Agenda, Format and Speakers

A reception sponsored by Van Scoyoc Associates at their offices at 101 Constitution Avenue , welcomed the delegations on Thursday evening. 

     

                Mike Moore makes a point at reception.                             Delegates enjoy a drink and a view of the Capitol.

Discussion sessions were held all day on Friday April 21 and on Saturday morning April 22.  The venue for the sessions was the historic Cosmos Club on Massachusetts Avenue just west of DuPont Circle in downtown Washington . 

      

                             Session at Cosmos Club                                                                Session at Cosmos Club

     

Michael Jordan, CEO of EDS                                         Ross Wilson, David Skilling, Martyn Dunne, Nick Main, Stephen Jacobi, John Ascroft

Assistant Secretary of State for Asia and the Pacific, Chris Hill, gave a keynote address at a luncheon sponsored by EDS and Meat & Wool New Zealand at the Westin Embassy Row hotel across the street from the Cosmos Club on Friday.  His remarks covered a wide range of regional issues affecting the two countries and were followed by an extensive question and answer session.

Asst. Secretary Chris Hill addresses Friday luncheon.

Jack Valenti, whose ties to New Zealand and New Zealanders date back to World War II, charmed and entertained participants and guests at a grand Friday evening dinner at the National Museum for Women in the Arts sponsored by Boeing and Fonterra.  The dinner was preceded by a cocktail reception sponsored by Pernod Ricard.  US Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Tom Donohue inspired delegates at the Saturday morning breakfast at the Cosmos Club with his remarks on trade and the quality of the US-NZ relationship.  Senator Mitchell closed the Forum at the Saturday luncheon at the New Zealand Embassy. His moving reflection on an American from Maine who adopted New Zealand as his home, and his global perspective on the importance, in war and peace, of friendship and collaboration between likeminded nations who share history and values, perfectly captured the spirit of the inaugural Forum.

Jack Valenti at National Women’s Museum

mentioned above and Co-Chairs Clayton Yeutter, Jim Bolger, and Mike Moore who made regular thoughtful interventions and led the discussions, these included the following:

·         John Mullen, President, US-NZ Council

·         Mike Green, Senior Advisor & Japan Chair at CSIS, Associate Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University , former Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the NSC under President George W. Bush

In addition to introductory remarks at each of the sessions, longer presentations were made by Under Secretary of Commerce Frank Lavin, NZ Minister of Trade and Minister of Defense Phil Goff, Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, and NZ Opposition Leader Don Brash. 

While all participants were “equals” throughout the Forum, a number were called upon during the sessions to make introductory remarks as chairs or session leaders, or to introduce or thank speakers.  In addition to the speakers

John Mullen, Mike Green, Frank Lavin, Paula Dobriansky

·          David Skilling, Chief Executive, New Zealand Institute

 ·        Michael Jordan, Chairman of the Board and CEO of EDS

·         John Palmer, Chairman, Air New Zealand

·         Paul Cleveland, Chairman of the US-NZ Council, former U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Malaysia

·         David Cunliffe, NZ Minister of Immigration, Minister of Communications and Information Technology

·         Graeme Harrison, Chairman, Anzco Foods

·         Martyn Dunne, NZ Comptroller of Customs

·         Keith Thomson, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Customs

·         Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the Food Products Association, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives (D-CA)

·         John Allen, Chief Executive, NZ Post

·         Jennifer Dunn, Senior Advisor, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives (R-WA)

·         Michael Barnett, Chief Executive, Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce

·         Fred Bergsten, Director of the Institute for International Economics

 

US Chamber President & CEO at Saturday breakfast.  

·         Gary Hawke, Professor, Victoria University School of Government

·         Don Elder, Chief Executive, Solid Energy

·         Mike Eckhart, President of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

·         Stephen Jacobi, Executive Director, NZ US Council

·         Roy Ferguson, NZ Ambassador to the United States

·         Bill McCormick, US Ambassador to New Zealand

  The Forum agenda can be found in Annex C.

Arrangements for the special events such as the reception, dinner and luncheons, for transportation, registration, printing, signage, catering and other administration were by INTELLevents of McLean, Virginia and coordinated by Council Director of Operations Jeremy Quinn. Letters and emails received by the Council from participants commenting on both the substance and conduct of the Forum used congratulatory words such as “terrific event”; “outstanding”; “excellent . . . thought provoking, excellent platform on which to build.”; “a clear success”; and “brilliant manner” in which the event came off.

Minister David Cunliffe, John Mullen, Sen. George Mitchell, Rt. Hon. Jim Bolger, Minister Phil Goff 

at closing luncheon at NZ Embassy

Outcomes, Evaluations, Commentary

There was a strong consensus among Participants that the Forum was valuable to the relationship, exceeded expectations, and should be repeated.  Planning already has been initiated for the second Forum, in New Zealand in the September-November timeframe in 2007.  Examples of post-Forum commentary include the following:

Excepts from AMCHAM ( Auckland ) Newsletter May 2006

“Forum Co-Chair and NZ US Council Chairman Jim Bolger said the Washington event surpassed expectations in terms of the participation from the US side. ‘We’ve had an extraordinary opportunity to influence the thinking of some key people in Washington DC . They now know a lot more about New Zealand and its potential to contribute to US global business interests. That can only prove positive of the future.’

“President of the US-NZ Council John Mullen emphasized the scope and richness of the frank exchanges at the Forum. . . .  ‘This Forum was a unique opportunity to understand and learn from one another and the distinguished participants achieved that superbly.’

“NZ US Council Executive Director Stephen Jacobi said the discussion had been robust and positive. ‘The most pleasing outcome is the commitment to meet in New Zealand next year, which will be a great way to keep the momentum going. The NZ US Council will begin preparations for the next event immediately.’  

“TLN Chair Philip Lewin reports ‘While there is no sudden breakthrough to report on the commercial front, I and my New Zealand colleagues came away with a real sense that our longstanding quest for a free trade agreement with the United States had been given renewed vitality as a result of this meeting’.

Amb. Anne Martindell welcomes delegations at reception.

 

View from roof at 101 Constitution Avenue .  

By Fran O’Sullivan

      “The new Partnership Forum will over time help to overcome differences in the way of a deal with the US. I can’t say anything about the detailed discussions at the partnership forum I attended as a founding director of the NZ US Council.  The forum was held under the Chatham House rule.

      “But my take is that it was an overwhelming positive and can only help to create renewed understanding which will ultimately benefit New Zealand business.”

“Participant John Palmer, the chairman of Air New Zealand , said it was ‘a great start’ although the true value would probably not be felt for some years. The immediate benefit is quality of the interaction between business and political leaders”, he said.  “The chemistry was great and is probably the best reflections of the real strength of the relationship between the two countries."

Statement by Co-Chair Clayton Yeutter:

"The Forum was a superb public/private sector bilateral event - the best I've seen in years.  It was marked by lots of candor, which in itself is healthy, and loads of genuine respect on both sides.   It was almost like a 'family council,' in a family where siblings occasionally scrap with each other, but with palpable underlying affection.

"Accolades are particularly due the New Zealand participants, who came a long way with an incredibly high level delegation.  In all my years in Washington , D.C. , I do not recall any country ever bringing this much intellectual horsepower to this city at one point in time.  That extensive knowledge and experience showed throughout the Forum discussion."

"The Forum by no means guarantees that there will be a U.S.-New Zealand FTA negotiation anytime soon.  But the case for an FTA could not have been made any more persuasively than was done by the N.Z. participants.  Not only did New Zealand 's present and former government officials handle themselves well, but so did everyone from the private sector.  The latter truly exemplify why an FTA would be in the long term interest of both countries."

Dom Post Op Ed April 2006 (excerpt)

The Washington Forum Has Made A Difference

Charles Finny, CEO, Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce

          “As a participant in the Forum, and long term champion of the relationship, I have come away with the firm view that our second most important relationship (after that with Australia ) is in a better state than it was before the Forum.  I also see the way forward to building a new relationship, one that will be different to that which existed prior to 1985, but one which will be no less close.

George Hickton, Michael Barnett, Charles Finny, Murray McCully, and Simon Leeming (back)  

“While it is not possible to describe what actually happened during the forum (because of the Chatham House rule) I did have the opportunity to stay in Washington for a day or so after it concluded.  I also spent a day on the West Coast . . . . These discussions have continued since my return to New Zealand and they support the conclusion that the Forum has moved us forward in this critical relationship.

“How did this Forum achieve this positive outcome?  By allowing a free and frank airing of views, and by forcing a room full of influential Americans to do nothing else than think about the relationship with New Zealand for two days.  These are busy people. . . . .  Our Forum was competing with the Chinese President, a meeting of the world’s Finance Ministers, and an important Indian delegation.  Many of the Americans I spoke with commented that something has clearly gone wrong with the manner in which New Zealand has been treated along the way, and that the current relationship with New Zealand just doesn’t make sense.  . .

“For the New Zealand side, the Forum was a useful reminder that the differences we have had with the United States are akin to differences within a family.  A higher standard was being applied to us than would normally be applied to other countries. . . .

            “The Forum in Washington showed that New Zealand and the United States can sit down and talk frankly about all items on the bilateral agenda.  Both sides want to take the relationship forward, and there is no prerequisite for policy change before forward movement can be considered.” 

Weekly Report from Murray McCully, MP for East Coast Bays, Opposition Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, National Party (excerpt)

“Last week’s two-day US/New Zealand Business Forum in Washington provided a high powered opportunity to reinforce key trade relationships in the US .  The presence of two former New Zealand Prime Ministers (Bolger and Moore), the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash, Ministers Goff and Cunliffe, as well as former WTO Ambassador (now National MP) Tim Groser and the humble Member for East Coast Bays, plus a range of our most senior business leaders, spoke volumes of this country’s desire to advance the trade relationship.

      “On the US side, the presence of senior business and political figures made it clear that New Zealand is not without friends in that part of the world. . . .

      “The investment of effort in last week’s forum was well worthwhile.  The environment for progress was improved.”

                 

Air NZ Chairman John Palmer introduces session.                            Opposition Leader Don Brash addresses Forum.

“When I was a young man, Asia was perceived by New Zealanders – and for good reason – as a source of threat. Today, the predominant perception is one of opportunity.”

Hon. Don Brash “NZ, the US & the Asia Pacific Region – A Common Agenda

Related Commentary on US-NZ Relationship

Neither negotiation on a US-NZ free trade agreement nor military cooperation/NZ’s nuclear policy was specifically on the Forum agenda. However, the Forum came on the heels of two significant letters that dealt with these themes, one from Senators John McCain and John Sununu to the President, another from the Co-Chairs of the Friends of New Zealand Congressional Caucus in the House, Jim Kolbe and Ellen Tauscher letter to US Trade Representative Rob Portman.  Then, on the Monday following the Forum, an Op Ed article by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Asia and the Pacific Randy Shriver appeared in the Asia edition of the Wall Street Journal touching on both subjects at length. 

Nick Main , Amb. Roy Ferguson, Min. David Cunliffe , Cal Dooley

At the Forum itself, NZ Trade and Defense Minister Phil Goff also touched on both subjects in a speech he released to the press following the day of its delivery (which was consistent with Forum rules).  Coupled with frank exchanges during the Forum between senior US and NZ officials, positive recent remarks of Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill at the Friday lunch and elsewhere, such as to NZ TVOne during the Forum, comments on meetings between Minister Goff and US cabinet-level officials, and bipartisan calls on both sides at and since the Forum to renew and broaden the relationship, give new momentum to private and public sector discussion on these important topics. 

Excerpts from McCain/Sununu letter to President Bush of March 6, 2006

            “We are writing to encourage you to launch free trade negotiations with New Zealand .

            “After our recent visit to New Zealand , we can attest to the great enthusiasm in that country for launching FTA talks with the United States .  We share this enthusiasm, believing that doing so would be firmly in the interest of the United States .  By enhancing our bilateral relations in this way, we could strengthen ties with a key partner in the Pacific that makes important contributions to the global war on terror.

            “Free trade with New Zealand would be in the clear economic interest of the United States ...

            “But the reasons to move forward with an FTA go beyond the economic benefits.  New Zealand ’s contributions to coalition efforts in the global war on terror include the deployment of special forces to Afghanistan and leadership a Provincial Reconstruction Team there, and its military partners with the United States in multiple regions.   

“It is no secret that the United States and New Zealand have had differences in the past, but we cannot allow these differences to obstruct forward movement in this crucial bilateral relationship, nor let it block progress in areas of mutual interest.”

       Excerpts from Kolbe/Tauscher letter to Rob Portman of March 22, 2006

“As co-chairs of the Friends of New Zealand Congressional Caucus, we are writing to express our continued interest in deepening U.S. trade and economic relations with New Zealand and to recommend that the two countries quickly begin negotiations toward a comprehensive free trade agreement. We were very pleased with the recent launches of free trade negotiations with South Korea and Malaysia and hope that similar trade talks can be initiated with New Zealand this year.

“Today, the United States is one of the largest investors in New Zealand ’s economy, . . . . The U.S. is the second largest exporter of goods to New Zealand , behind Australia , . . . The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) lists New Zealand among the top five countries with which the U.S. should consider FTA negotiations.

“We understand that one of the principal issues holding up free trade negotiations is New Zealand ’s policy banning all nuclear powered and armed vessels from its waters. We would like to know if indeed this is the case or if there are other issues causing the hold up, as we believe that our first priority should be to eliminate trade barriers rather than having economic liberalization slowed down by extraneous bilateral issues. It is certain that we have differences in foreign policy at least as acute with other countries with whom we are currently negotiating bilateral agreements, . . . . Our past experience with comprehensive trade agreements has shown that commercial engagement allows us to strengthen and deepen bilateral relations and more effectively deal with other foreign policy issues.

“It is important to also note that New Zealand has been a solid partner with the U.S. during the war on terror. . . .

“Now that the Australia FTA has successfully been implemented, we believe that we are overdue in launching negotiations with New Zealand .”

    

Gail McCormick, Paul & Joan Cleveland, Amb. Bill              Washington skyline and sunset from roof of 101 Constitution McCormick, Mike Eckhart, John Mullen

Excerpts from Armitage/Schriver Op Ed in the April 24, 2006 Asia Edition of the Wall Street Journal

“Fighting for freedom and promoting free trade is no small task, but America ’s job is made much easier with the support of likeminded allies. New Zealand would be just such a partner. Unfortunately, decades-old U.S. policy may be inhibiting this bilateral relationship from reaching its full potential.

Washington and Wellington enjoy normal diplomatic relations, for the most part. But in the crucial area of security, the relationship remains burdened with constraints. That’s because, in 1986, New Zealand implemented an antinuclear policy that prevented visits to New Zealand by ships carrying nuclear weapons or powered by nuclear reactors.  The U.S. responded by suspending its security obligations to Wellington . . . . We’re not arguing with that decision.  But this should not preclude military cooperation in other areas.

“At the moment, military relations between the two countries are lagging as a result of this quarter century-old dispute.  Due to U.S. regulations, New Zealand cannot participate in any exercises or seminars with the American military without first receiving high-level waivers from the U.S. Department of Defense. . . .

“We feel this no longer best serves American interests. The U.S. military is spread thinly in various missions around the world, and could use all the help it can get. New Zealand not only shares similar democratic values, it has increasing capacity to promote them abroad. . . .

“The problem is not just security, however. Bilateral trade also remains constrained by the 1986 decision. Washington ’s refusal to commit to negotiations with Wellington on a free-trade agreement gives reason to suspect that U.S. officials are viewing this issue through the prism of nuclear policy. New Zealand ’s interest in an FTA may be seen in some quarters of Washington as useful leverage for persuading Wellington to re-examine its antinuclear legislation.

“This is another example of wasted potential. We participated in a partnership forum between business, government and academic leaders from the two countries in Washington last week to promote awareness of the benefits of an FTA. Unfortunately, the collective mood was not optimistic. This is despite the fact that New Zealand has been a reliable partner in the promotion of free trade, working closely with the U.S. on this issue in the World Trade Organization, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and other multilateral for a. A U.S.-New Zealand FTA would continue this partnership, and create greater momentum for trade liberalization throughout Asia . . . .

“A properly structured FTA would benefit both economies. U.S. foreign direct investment in New Zealand is largely concentrated in finance, telecommunications services and manufacturing. For the U.S. , New Zealand offers a highly skilled labor force, a range of highly competitive natural resource-based industries, and leading-edge software, telecommunications and creative industries. An FTA could also complement the U.S. FTA with Australia , as most American firms doing business with Australia are also involved with New Zealand , and vice versa. Regardless of U.S. disagreements with New Zealand on the nuclear issue, there is no need to take an overly punitive approach, especially when it harms Washington ’s own interests. New Zealand is already a valued partner in promoting international security and free trade—and is willing and capable of doing even more.”

Excerpts from Minister Phil Goff’s speech to open the Forum in the Session on “Different Paths to Common Values”

“At the most fundamental level, we both have an overriding commitment to democracy, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms. We are both old democracies, and members of a relatively small group of countries that over the last century have been consistent in the advocacy and practice of these principles.

“Drawing on pioneering origins, we value pragmatism, common sense and getting things done. Our populations are diverse, dynamic and relatively youthful, fuelled by rapid inward migration. We believe in equal opportunity and advancement according to merit, fostered by market-friendly, open, transparent and well-governed economies.

               “We also share a strong commitment to building and maintaining global peace and prosperity. Our work together in pursuit of these common goals is not new.
              “In the international security arena, New Zealand and the United States fought alongside each other in the major conflicts of the 20th Century . . .

"One of the realities of the 21st Century is the threat posed to all states by terrorism. Since September 2001, New Zealand has committed itself strongly to the global campaign against terrorism and to Operation Enduring Freedom, deploying ground, naval and air assets to Afghanistan and the Gulf region. . . .

                “Our two countries share objectives in promoting international prosperity as well as security.   We work very closely together in a multitude of regional and international fora including the WTO and APEC, promoting trade and economic liberalisation and enhancement of the multilateral trading system.
             

                           Hon. Phil Goff (opening the Forum)

New Zealand has been at the forefront of international trade liberalisation, significantly reforming our own economy in the mid-1980s and pursuing bilateral and regional free trade agreements in a policy similar to the US “competitive liberalisation” approach. Few, if any, other countries have worked as consistently andclosely together in support of trade liberalisation as the US and New Zealand . . . .

  New Zealand ’s nuclear-free legislation remains an issue on which we disagree. We appreciate that this is an important issue to the US government as it is equally to New Zealanders who wish to remain nuclear free. The issue is not going to disappear. But nor is it appropriate for our relationship to be defined by the disagreement between our countries on one particular issue.
             “Rather we should look at how we can add new value to our relationship in a way that meets both of our needs in the post 9/11 world. . . .

“Since 9/11 our cooperation across a range of security policy, non-proliferation, customs, police and intelligence sharing areas has increased. These are not areas we often talk about publicly for obvious reasons, but they are very important. They are areas where New Zealand has devoted more resources since 2001 and areas where our interaction with the US and other close friends has intensified. . . .

New Zealand is increasingly an active participant in the wider Asia Pacific region. We recognise the key leadership role played by the US in promoting security and prosperity in the region. . . .

“Turning to our own trade and economic relationship, the United States is currently the second largest market for New Zealand merchandise goods. It is a vital supplier of goods and services into New Zealand and an important source of foreign direct investment. Negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with the United States is therefore an important objective for New Zealand .
             “The arguments for an FTA are strong. A bilateral FTA would be in the economic interests of both of us and would be relatively straightforward to negotiate. It makes sense for two countries which work together so closely for international trade liberalisation to remove the barriers to trade between each other. The negotiation of a high quality, comprehensive FTA could have a positive effect with other trading partners. . . .

“. . . this opening session poses the theme of different paths to common values. Different histories, location, size and experience clearly produce different outlooks and create different responsibilities. But a shared western heritage . . . has also produced a like-mindedness that draws our countries together.
            “We also have a common interest in a world that is stable, secure, peaceful and prosperous. It makes sense for us to work together in pursuit of these objectives, but that does not require the suppression of differences of viewpoints on specific issues. We are, after all, both countries committed to pluralism.
             “I welcome the opportunity for dialogue this Forum provides . . . .”

Under Secretary of Commerce Frank Lavin also spoke, as Phil Goff’s counterpart at the opening Forum session entitled “Different Paths to Common Values: Western Nations, Pacific Rim, 21st Century.”  Secretary Lavin discussed commonalities but did not address policy disagreements.  Rather he discussed the nature of a “relationship” between two nations, one that goes beyond common values, histories, and friendship.  Mr. Lavin also released his remarks, excerpts of which follow:

Under Secretary Frank Lavin’s speech in Session on “Different Paths to Common Values”

 “In the first instance, anyone who examines U.S.-New Zealand prospects ought to take a very positive view. Our countries are remarkably close friends for being so far apart in distance. We both share a similar “can do” spirit of optimism and endless possibility that stems from our pioneer roots. . . .  

“The United States and New Zealand are long-time partners in the defense of freedom and the promotion of modern democratic values. . . .  We work together in environmental protection, climate-change issues, oceans and fisheries, in Antarctica , and in other areas in science and technology. We are also partners together in law enforcement issues such as anti-terror financing, money laundering, and trafficking in persons . . . .

      Frank Lavin addresses opening session of the Forum

     “On trade issues, we are grateful for New Zealand ’s leadership in support of global free trade and we value working together in the Doha Round to knock down barriers to trade in agriculture and ensure that the round results in new market access. In our own trading relations there is significant good news. In the last decade, trade in goods between our countries increased 81%. In 2005, the United States – New Zealand trade increased by 15% from 2004 with total trade merchandise trade equaling over $5.8 billion. I’m pleased to say that 2005 U.S. goods exports to New Zealand were up almost 28% over 2004... 

 

“These figures are consistent with a shifting pattern in U.S. trade reflecting the importance of the Pacific Basin to America . . . . for over twenty years our trade across the Pacific has been greater than our trade than our trade across the Atlantic . . . . “To my mind, we should take due pride in our common values, but there are some potential risks . . .. One risk is that the discussion could over-emphasize historical sentiment and collaboration and under-emphasize a hard nose understanding of where our two countries stand. Another . . . is that we fail to appreciate that although values are shared, expectations are adjusted accordingly. We should not be satisfied in noting that our countries have more in common with each other than other countries because we expect much more from each other. . . .

“It strikes me that there are two fundamental errors that nations need to avoid in good relationships, two ends of the spectrum. The first error is one of “automaticity”. This involves a set of across-the-board, automatic obligations which one nation expects of the other. The error in this is that it carries more of a sense of ownership than a true, mutually beneficial relationship that would leave scope for independent decision making.

“The other fundamental error is the opposite of automaticity; it is open architecture. It views all interactions between countries as a la carte. This open architecture allows each country to undertake interactions purely at its pleasure, with no sense of obligation to the other party. In other words, interactions are simply an aggregate of one-off decisions. It is a happy coincidence when we cooperate but no inference should be drawn from it. . . .

“Somewhere between the two extremes lies a healthy relationship where there is a good degree of mutuality, predictability and integration. There is an understanding of costs and benefits of this relationship and each country understands that every single interaction does not have to redound to its immediate benefit as long as the relationship in general is beneficial.

“Finally, there should be architecture or mechanisms that formalize all of this. We were there once before. We need to find a new equilibrium point on that spectrum. We’re here today because we are hopeful that a relationship between the United States and New Zealand , based on the global realities of the 21st century will grow and prosper. . . .”

 

                        

                 Amb. Roy Ferguson, R. Hon Jim Bolger                          Participants listen to welcomes at reception.

Next Steps

Jim Bolger welcomed Forum participants with a quote from the first President Bush, who said he saw history “as a book with many pages – and each day we fill a page with acts of hopefulness and meaning.”  Mr. Bolger continued, “I believe that our meeting today takes place with a sense of history in the making.  We have come together to write another page in the history of the relationship between our two countries.  I have no doubt that we can do so with ‘hopefulness and meaning’ if we really put our minds to it.”  Clearly both delegations left believing they had.  

The two councils already have begun discussing plans for the 2007 Partnership Forum.  The second Forum will be in New Zealand , most likely in the September-November timeframe, at a place to be determined.  It presents an unparalleled opportunity to those with commercial, public policy, academic or other interests in the two countries and the region to play an essential and ongoing role in accelerating this high-level dialogue.  Participants from both countries in the 2006 Forum applauded the quality of the delegations and the discourse and volunteered to work to maintain that quality going forward.  High level interest already has been expressed in the corporate communities of both countries, especially from the inaugural sponsors who praised the effectiveness of the format, the seriousness and level of the exchange, the potential for long-term results, and the pleasure of place and company.

  

              John Mullen, Ed Farrell, Stu van Scoyoc.                                   Mike Moore, Gwen Mullen, Gary Hawke

            It is anticipated that many in the visiting American delegation will want to combine their trip to New Zealand with a tour of the country and planning will include providing options in that regard.  Planners also will look at other gatherings in the region in the target timeframe both to avoid conflict and to see if combining meetings will facilitate public and private sector participation at the Forum.

             

Fred Benson makes a point at lunch.                               John Mullen, Gail McCormick, Linda Dooley, Cal Dooley

The two councils are deeply grateful to the distinguished Co-Chairs Bolger, Mitchell, Moore, and Yeutter, to council members who contributed to building the delegations and preparing the events, and to the 13 corporate sponsors, without whom the Forum would not have taken place.
 


Annex A

Partnership Forum Sponsors

Platinum

  

 

                                              

 

Gold

 

                     

 

Silver

                                               

            Copyright 2004

 


Annex B                   United States New Zealand Council

United States–New Zealand 2006 Partnership Forum

US Attendee List

1.      Hon. Clayton Yeutter, Senior Advisor Hogan & Hartson, former Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Trade Representative

2.      Hon. George Mitchell, Partner DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, Board Chairman, Walt Disney Company, Board of Directors, Staples, Inc., Chancellor, The Queen’s University of Northern Ireland , former Senator from Maine