Naive? Stupid? Right?

Ive been talking to some of my colleagues today who believe that the only reason Australia got an FTA with the US, is because of their partaking in the invasion and coup in Iraq. They also believe that while NZ continues its stance of being friendly while still mouthing off about the US, that NZ has no chance what so ever of obtaining an FTA with the US. What little chance we did have seems to have been scuttled when we didnt take part in the invasion.

So I guess the question is - was that the right decision?

Now, the Iraq situation is an absolute cock up of epic proportions. But Australia have managed to obtain the elusive US FTA, by being part of that. President Clinton identified in 1995 that regime change in Iraq was desirable, so even if things had have been different and we were in the last 2 years of a Gore administration - chances are at some point a US sanctioned coup would have happenned anyway. So I guess, while we all think things will be better once the Bush administration is gone in 2008, will it really? Theyre still the US, and the Democrats, while much better on the economy and their internal social policy, were still foreign policy bullies - blowing the crap out of a load of places.

So is it in New Zealand's long-term interests to remain one step removed from the US? Or should we look to re-establish ourselves as an ally of the US? I argued that if NZ were to take part in the invasion, it would have been electoral suicide for Clark, to which they responded that both Howard and Blair have both been returned since the invasion, and it is only now having an effect on Bush, and that Brash was pro-war anyway so voters would have stuck with Labour in anycase. (which I disagree with - people were unhappy with the govt, but wanted no part of the war more, so stuck with Labour on that basis, if war wasnt an issue, then they would have just been unhappy with the govt...).

So was it naive of New Zealand to think that we could still negotiate an FTA with the US after refusing to take part in their invasion? I think the answer is yes. Is it stupid to continually be nice one minute, and slag them off the next? Probably yes, but you have the problem of having one audience that wants to hear nice things, and another that doesnt (the electorate). And was it right to stay out of the invasion and lose that holy grail of an FTA? Yes it was. There was and still is no reason for an invasion of Iraq, and yes maybe Australia are laughing all the way to the bank - but it all comes back to the salient question - what is a human life worth? Is an FTA really worth the loss of thousands of young soldiers lives, let alone hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? I think not, but still, it makes you think about the morality of war and politics.