Is Moore the right man for the job?

TALKING POLITICS - BY GORDON CAMPBELL - THE WELLINGTONIAN

OPINION: The appointment of Mike Moore as New Zealand's ambassador to the United States is one of those political gambits that could play better at home than it will among the Americans.

Already, local media and sector groups have applauded Prime Minister John Key's bipartisan gesture of choosing the former Labour leader for such a key job, in much the same way Helen Clark won praise for appointing former National leader Jim Bolger to the top job at New Zealand Post and Kiwibank.

Ability so rarely triumphs over cronyism that any occasion where the "best man for the job" seems to win should be celebrated.

Is Moore, in fact, the ideal man for the job?

Quite correctly, many commentators have cited Moore's long career in politics, and an experience in global trade negotiations that led to him becoming director-general of the World Trade Organisation. The hope is that these qualities will help New Zealand to clinch a free trade deal with the US, a goal still commonly hailed in editorials as being the Holy Grail of our trade policy.

It would be almost as useful if Moore could convince the Americans to reduce or abolish the current tariff barriers facing New Zealand meat exports to the US, already our largest beef market and the second largest market for our lamb.

The downside, if there is one, is Moore may not be the ideal representative within the more protectionist climate evident in Washington since Barack Obama became President.

For better or worse, Moore became the poster boy for the free trade gospel promoted by the World Trade Organisation, a stance that came under heavy fire at Seattle during the famous 1999 street riots.

If Moore is to succeed in his new post, he may need to dial back the rhetoric and pursue goals more in tune with the changed times.

Obama is not against free trade. At the ASEAN gathering in Singapore last year, he indicated the US was strongly interested in joining the Trans Pacific Partnership, and making it a key platform for promoting trade liberalisation within the Asia Pacific region.

Currently, the partnership membership includes Chile, New Zealand, Brunei and Singapore.

What the US will not countenance – especially given Obama's current problems with Congress – is any free trade deal that puts American markets and jobs at risk.

In this climate, it is hard to see how New Zealand, for all of Moore's wiles, could achieve a meaningful deal that would make our trade position better – and not worse.

If negotiated poorly, the Holy Grail could easily become a poisoned chalice.

The evidence for feeling that way? In January, the Australian Industry Group reported that so far, 69 per cent of businesses it surveyed had seen no benefits from the Australian free trade deal with Singapore.

Five years into the free trade deal with the US, 60 per cent of Australian firms said they had got nothing from it, and 71 per cent felt likewise about the trade deal with Chile.

Clearly then, a free trade deal will not be a magic solution to our trading problems. Moore will need to bring other skills to bear, and pursue wider goals in his new job.