date:2009-07-09T06:31:00
source:Embassy Wellington
origin:09WELLINGTON209
destination:VZCZCXYZ0008 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHWL #0209 1900629 ZNY CCCCC
ZZH O R 090631Z JUL 09 FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON TO RUEHC/SECSTATE
WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0062 INFO RHHMUNA/USPACOM HONOLULU HI RUEHBN/AMCONSUL
MELBOURNE 0004 RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 0008 RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA
0012 RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY 0014 RUEHSV/AMEMBASSY SUVA 0003
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC

C O N F I D E N T I A L WELLINGTON 000209

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/07/09
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, MARR, OPRC, NZ, US
SUBJECT: New Zealand Releases Documents on US Afghan Troop Request

REF: WELLINGTON 179

CLASSIFIED BY: DJKeegan, CDA, DOS, Embassy Wellington; REASON:
1.4(B), (D)

1. (SBU) Radio New Zealand (RNZ) reported July 8 that it had
obtained New Zealand Government documents that showed that the U.S.
Government had put "constant pressure" on the GNZ to increase its
military commitment to Afghanistan. Embassy contacted NZ Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) who confirmed that it had
provided documents to RNZ in response to an "Official Information
Act (OIA) request" and provided the documents to the Embassy
(emailed to EAP/ANP). The documents show no evidence of pressure,
but concerns about New Zealand's possible additional military
commitment to Afghanistan will likely cause increasing media
scrutiny.

2. (SBU) MFAT Americas Division Director David Taylor told the
Embassy that MFAT had received the RNZ request three months ago and
had just released the material in response. He noted that MFAT had
exceeded the statutory 21 day limit for responding to OIA requests.
The heavily redacted documents released include a series of
fourteen diplomatic cables, most between MFAT and the NZ Embassy in
Washington, dated from 11 February to 9 April as well as three MFAT
press releases and the transcript of a media interview. The cables
report that the US side on several occasions expressed appreciation
for NZ military capabilities, including particularly the NZ PRT and
the SAS. The cables also report that the U.S. Embassy in Wellington
conveyed a USG request for comment on a series of topics as the
U.S. prepared to review its own policy in Afghanistan and that MFAT
responded with comments. In the cables and in the media pieces, the
GNZ, Foreign Minister Murray McCully, and Defence Minister Wayne
Mapp state that they are looking at what they might be able to do
to help in Afghanistan, while noting that the New Zealand Defence
Force (NZDF) is stretched thin by current commitments. They note
that the GNZ is undertaking a review of its own posture in
Afghanistan and any decision on military commitments will be made
after the conclusion of that review.

3. (U) Radio New Zealand's report based on the OIA documents was a
very brief factual report on its main morning news program, Morning
Report, saying that they had asked for and received the papers
which showed, they said, that the U.S. had constantly pressured GNZ
for an increased commitment to Afghanistan. The story and papers
have not yet received extensive coverage elsewhere.

4. (C) ChargC) noted to Taylor that the Embassy and the USG should
have been informed before any documents were shared regarding
meetings with USG officials. Taylor said that MFAT had made a
mistake in not consulting with the U.S. side, apologized, and
promised to convey ChargC)'s objections. He assured me that he would
do everything possible to ensure that this does not occur again. He
confirmed that the documents provided to RNZ would also be provided
to any news organization which requested them. The Embassy DAO has
contacted NZ Ministry of Defence which reports that they have not
received any OIA requests along these lines. If they did they would
respond by providing the same documents already released by MFAT.


5. (C) Comment. Having reviewed the documents released, we find
nothing to support an allegation of U.S. pressure on New Zealand.
Instead, the dominant themes are U.S. respect and appreciation for
NZ military capabilities and contributions. Even though there is
no smoking gun, we anticipate that the NZ media will continue to
question whether the GNZ is justified in considering possible
additional military deployments to Afghanistan. As Green Party
Member of Parliament Kennedy Graham demonstrated in his questions
to the Foreign Minister in Parliament (reftel), there is a
continuing undercurrent of suspicion toward the U.S. and doubt
about whether U.S. and NATO actions in Afghanistan are in keeping
with New Zealand's tradition of strong adherence to the letter of
UN limitations on the use of force. In addition, there are NZ
reporters and columnists who are looking for a way to show that
either the Key Government is not fully in control of its agenda or
too willing to listen to requests from the USG. I would anticipate
that one or more of them will obtain these documents and try to
tease out of this thin gruel something more intriguing than RNZ has
yet produced.
KEEGAN