233. Telegram From the Embassy in New Zealand to the Department of State1
1442. Subject: Prime Minister Muldoon Delivers Speech About President Carter’s Foreign Policy.
1. Following is verbatim text of speech delivered by Prime Minister Muldoon, April 19, before Auckland Division of the New Zealand Institute of Management.
“In Sydney a few weeks ago at the commencement of a journey which took me to seven different countries in three weeks, I made a comment which was widely publicized back home in New Zealand. I said that President Carter was the most powerful man in the world. He was also a peanut farmer from Georgia. Various political writers, opposition politicians, and even some of those most omniscient of journalists who have graduated to leader writer, have purported to see something derogatory in the plain statement of fact. Let me put it another way—it is a mighty long jump from the little town of Plains, Georgia, where brother Billy is a beer drinking petrol station attendant, and sister is a peripatetic evangelist to the White House in Washington, D.C., even if the journey was made by way of the Governor’s mansion of the State of Georgia. Being Governor of a State of the United States is to hold an important public office, just how important depending on the size and nature of the particular State and the condition of its political system. If asked to name a few State Governors, most New Zealanders would perhaps come up with the name of Nelson Rockefeller, long time Governor of New York State. Maybe some would remember Ronald Reagan, Governor of the State of California, and about there most New Zealanders would stop. State Governors in other words are not normally international figures. Several years ago I wrote that [Page 768] ‘unless America throws up a number of men of courage and genius in the next twenty-five years, I believe that the classical symptoms of the decline of a civilization will turn into a reality’.
I wrote this as a considered judgment in spite of my warm regard for the American people individually, and as a race, and in spite of my belief that the close friendship between our two countries, which has now existed for more than a quarter of a century since World War II, must be fostered and maintained because New Zealand’s future is inseparable for as far ahead as we can see from that of the United States.
Is President Carter one such man? It is much too early to say but at least one can say at present that he has some of the attributes. He has a basic personal Christian morality, as indeed had Gerald Ford. In spite of the intense spotlight of public and private investigation, which inevitably accompanied his Presidential campaign, no hint of political scandal has attached itself to him. He has shown a willingness to speak out on moral issues. He is a highly successfull businessman, and his earlier Navy career was apparently a brilliant one. He became the political protege of a very interesting group of people of whom I shall have more to say later, but is he a man of genius who cannot only lead the most powerful nation on earth, but also the entire Free World? That is the question which is exercising the minds of the leaders of every country that I visited in the last month, and I mean every country without exception. What is clear, of course, is that his Presidential style is different. How much of that difference is due to a carefully thought out pattern, devised for domestic consumption, to meet the extraordinary circumstances of his election, and how much is due to political inexperience—that long step from Plains, Georgia to the White House—time may tell us. It is certainly not clear yet. The international impact, however, has been profound. There is uneasiness in the capitals of the world.
I was in Washington, D.C., on the night Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned,2 and as I sat watching his television performance in the lounge of the New Zealand Embassy, with a group of distinguished American dinner guests, I was almost moved to tears. The performance was flawless, but it was then that I realized that the day of the old professional in American politics was over, and President Nixon’s subsequent downfall merely underlined the fact. The American people have found their Presidents to have feet of clay and public realization of this fact has accompanied a move by Congress to take back the balance of power which formerly, and up until the time of President Franklin Roosevelt, they had, so that we are unlikely in the near future to see the domination [Page 769] of Congress by the administration which was so apparent during that period of about thirty years from the 1930’s.
How does Jimmy Carter fit into this situation? He has no personal congressional base. As distinct from Gerald Ford, who was in fact a product of Congress. The American congressional club is similar to the political club in any kind of a democracy, and frequently political opponents who are, or have been, Members of Parliament can call for and obtain favors which would be denied to outsiders. There is nowhere where this system is stronger than in the United States where the whole congressional system is based to a very considerable extent, on favors given, received, and traded. President Carter then has to establish a congressional base or he will find that the growing assertiveness of Congress negates his policies before they get off the ground. An immediate example is his abandonment of the fifty doller per taxpayer rebate which last week foundered on the rock of congressional opposition privately rather than publicly expressed.
In assessing President Carter’s public statements we should recall that although in the early stages of his campaign he was set to win by a landslide, when the day came he just barely kept his nose in front. An analysis of his support showed that he had overwhelming support from the Negroes, the ethnic minorities, the labour unions, and to a lesser extent the eastern part of the United States generally. Backed against this, and finally almost matching it, Gerald Ford had the support of the White Anglo-Saxon American, and the overwhelming support of the western part of the United States.
More than in most recent Presidential elections, President Carter faced a divided country where a great deal of his opposition rested with the more affluent sector of the population and the decision-making sector of the population. Allied to the congressional situation then it would be little wonder if he devoted himself to a very considerable extent this year to widening the base of his popular support inside the United States. This, I believe, he is trying to do and on present indications I would think that he is having some success. One factor which impinges on this situation is the group that I referred to earlier who made him their protege, and that is the Tri-Lateral Commission. The Tri-Lateral Commission was the brain child of David Rockefeller, long time Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a brilliant and dedicated internationalist, and, I believe, an honorable man. Being concerned about the deteriorating relationship between the United States, Europe and Japan, he brought together a group of people, principally from the eastern elite, and funded Zbigniew Brzezinski to organize the Commission. A rough equivalent is PBEC, the Pacific Basin Economic Commission, which holds its annual meeting this year in Christchurch next month. PBEC has members from the states bordering the Pacific Basin. [Page 770] The Tri-Lateral Commission has a somewhat similar membership from Japan, the United States and Western Europe. Jimmy Carter became a founding member of the Commission and has admitted that his education in foreign policy came from his membership in the Commission. Vice President Mondale is a member, and ten other leading Tri-Lateral Commission members have top administration posts, including Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, his Deputy Secretary, Warren Christopher, Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Richard Cooper, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Richard Holbrooke, Secretary to the Treasury Blumenthal, and various others.
‘Tri-lateralism’, as it is coming to be called, has inevitably produced fears that President Carter’s foreign policy may be exclusively directed East and West to the industrial nations of the Northern Hemisphere, and may be inadequate to encompass a global strategy, and particularly the affairs of Africa, South-East Asia and the South Pacific. This is a question which cannot yet, I believe, be answered with accuracy. In the American scene it may in total be a good thing in that a dedicated and charismatic individual, with strong moral principles, has been promoted to office by a wide ranging group of business and financial leaders, with roots in America’s most powerful economic partners, Japan and Western Europe. In New Zealand, it is fair to say, there would be some disquiet if the membership of PBEC not only promoted the Prime Minister for office, but provided the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Finance, and the permanent head of the Prime Minister’s Department. It may be that this is the reason why the first comment on the new Carter policies that I was able to get from an old friend who is a senior member of a Wall Street firm of high repute was favorable and confident—a view that was supported by other American bankers that I have met subsequently. Japanese members of the Commission, however might not be quite so sympathetic. When pressed by Prime Minister Fukuda to use the term ‘reducing’ rather than ‘withdrawing’ in respect of the proposed run down of forces in Korea, and indeed ‘reducing’ was the correct term, President Carter adamantly refused. This suggests that he was looking to American public opinion rather than Japanese opinion, or indeed international consequences. Similarly, his two-bite comment on neutralizing the Indian Ocean, a large bite followed shortly by a step back to a smaller bite, may well have increased his popularity domestically, but it spread considerable alarm in those countries with a direct interest in the situation in the Indian Ocean. His ‘moral foreign policy’ pronouncement has doubtless assisted him in the United States, but again it has caused consternation and confusion in international diplomatic circles.
It is very clear that taken literally it is impossible, and indeed the President has already indicated that, for example, South Korea is a [Page 771] special case, and that although the regime is oppressive its position is so important that American support must continue. His actions in respect of dissidence in the Soviet Union would have helped him considerably in the United States. They inevitably produced the rebuff that Cyrus Vance met in Moscow. It may be that the President had thought this thing through, knew that the rebuff was going to come, and accepted it as part of a longer term strategy, knowing that it would certainly not be the end of negotiations. That would indicate a political deviousness which has not yet been established as part of the Carter armory. The alternative that he did not expect the rebuff would indicate some degree of naivety.
The German Federal Republic can by no means feel as comfortable today as they have when dealing with previous American Presidents. The Western world is still asking Germany and Japan to diminish their rate of economic progress, and to increase their rate of inflation, in order to help remedy the ills of the rest of the Western world. Many Germans ask plaintively what good it does to weaken a strong economy in an abortive attempt to strengthen impossibly weak ones, and I must admit I have some sympathy for that point of view, particularly as Germany sits with the cold draught of Eastern Europe playing on the back of its neck from just accross a common border.
I have no high hopes of the forthcoming economic summit. But I do know that unless the major industrialized nations can work together, and then work in concert with the OPEC countries, there is no chance of the world economy coming back into an acceptable situation, but instead we will continue to see the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the Soviet Union and its satellites benefitting from the inevitable explosions that will be produced. President Carter holds the key to a settlement in the Middle East. The State of Israel cannot do without American support. The Arab world has considerably modified its demands in the light of the growing weakness of Egypt and the constant wasting of treasure in a futile struggle. Unfortunately there again the President has apparently made a mis-step, but certainly not one that need have any long-term adverse affect. It is only when one assumes high office that one realizes the intense pressure of time in decision making and the fallibility of so-called expert advice. When that advice is coming from people who are new in government, however successful they may have been in their own fields, it is superseding the advice of the professional advisers, but then it would be quite remarkable if every decision that was taken was a correct and successful one.
President Carter will be in office for a least four years. Most of the heads of government that I have met in recent weeks would, I think, like to see him take a little time to settle down and get the feel of the [Page 772] international scene from his new position in the White House, before moving too far or too fast. It appears clear, however, that the American domestic political situation makes it necessary for him to establish himself in the eyes of his own people. The dilemma is obvious.
I have spoken frankly to you about a situation which is of vital importance to the future of this country.
There may be some who would say that I have been too frank. Last year I was equally frank regarding our relationships with the Soviet Union, and I believe that a frank appraisal of these vital situations is what a country expects of its Prime Minister. Certainly, it is what this country is going to get so long as I am Prime Minister.
To sum up then, there is widespread concern among the friends of the United States as to the policies of the new administration. There is no reason that this time, however, to believe that as the new administration settles down those policies will not evolve in a manner that is helpful to the continuing task of the preservation of the Free World.”
2. Embassy’s comments will follow septel.3
- Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Country File, Box 56, New Zealand. Unclassified; Immediate. Sent for information to Auckland, Bonn, Canberra, London, Moscow, Suva for Selden, and Tokyo.↩
- October 10, 1973.↩
- Telegram 1458 from Wellington, April 21, provided the Embassy’s comments on Muldoon’s speech. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770252–0886 and D770138–0419)↩