Talk:Foreign relations of the Cook Islands/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ireland, Monaco, USA

CI not established official diplomatic relations with Ireland, Monaco and USA.

Ireland: no source for establishment of dipl.relations.

Monaco: here is only honorary consuls, no diplomatic relations.

USA: formal diplomatic relations not established. Used resources do not show sufficiently establishment of dipl. relations: 1) [1] they do not speak anything about accreditation for CI, 2) [2] While speaking about it, ending the Ambassador himself had spoken of this accreditation, but below in the official portrait that does not appear. The current Ambassador is not accredited for the CI and the Embassy is not accredited for the CI (only for NZ and Samoa). Accreditation for CI is only claiming a former Ambassador. 3) [3] This is the claim of a third party, the article is not primarily about accreditation. But the relevant resources from the US that refute establishment of dipl.relations: [4] and many others. After all, see also Foreign relations of the United States. Jan CZ (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ireland - OK, it was also mentioned as "pending", so obviously even the initial editor doesn't claim such relations are established - whatever his source is.

Monaco - the Official Journal of Monaco acknowledges the consul (honorary or not) - this doesn't happen without diplomatic relations.

USA - [1],[2],[3] are "positive proofs" about diplomatic relations (since 2005 or before): [1] is about activities in the Cook Islands of "Visiting US Ambassador McCormick"; [2] US Ambassador himself says he's accredited to the Cook Islands. Do you claim that he doesn't know where he's accredited to? You'll need a direct source for such glaring contradiction of Ambassador's own words, not some weak "negative proof" missing entries in some list and the like; [3] Here the Commander of US Marine Forces meets US Ambassador and the title of that ambassador is "ambassador to New Zealand, Samoa, and the Cook Islands". The "article" is pretty short actually and basically says "Commander meets Ambassador1 and Ambassador2" while giving the full titles of the ambassadors (states they are accredited to). [4] is a list of the current diplomatic representations of the US. It only shows that currently no ambassador is accredited, but that doesn't contradict former Ambassador McCormick accreditation in 2005. Japinderum (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Monaco - Consular relations are governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, diplomatic relations are governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Consuls may exist regardless of the existence of diplomatic relations (only consular relations).

USA - Source [4] certainly does not show that currently here is not an Ambassador (it is signposted "vacant" – see Ecuador on this source). This source shows, that no diplomatic relations USA and the Cook Islands here. While relations are supported only by phrasing of two persons in interviews, this is the official state information from the CIA.

Please, take it here on the talk page per WP:BRD instead of re-adding Monaco or USA. Jan CZ (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Monaco - what we have here is acknowledgement of the consul in the Official Journal of Monaco - appointment of the consul in this case is not a unilateral act of the Cook Islands. How do you think the Official Journal of Monaco get to publish this - certainly not after reading about it in the press - Monaco government was informed through the proper diplomatic channels.

Source [4] is not about diplomatic relations, but about diplomatic representation (ambassadors, consusls, etc.) There is no source showing "no diplomatic relations between USA and the Cook Islands". Currently there is no ambassador accredited, yet, but previously there was. We have a quote from US Ambassador stating that he's accredited to the Cook Islands. That's not just a random interviewee or journalist report - these are words of the Ambassador himself. I also added two more sources - about Cook Islands honorary consul in USA.

About WP:BRD - I'm reverting your bold edit, so you have to discuss before doing it again. Japinderum (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jan CZ about the USA. Their website clearly indicated no diplomatic relations. In addition, it's not even listed on their list of all diplomatic relations. CMD (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Monaco - I never said, that consular officers are acting unilaterally. Of course, the Consul receives exequatur from the host country. This has nothing to do with the existence of diplomatic relations. I repeat, consular relations shall be governed by Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the existence of the Consul only shows the existence of consular relations, not diplomatic relations. If you're saying that consular relations include diplomatic relations automatically, so it's a very bold claim, for which no evidence has been provided. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in itself does not contain anything like that.

USA – I think that the evidence submitted by Chip is sufficiently clear, what clearer evidence still be submitted?

By the way, look to the different language versions of Wikipedia, should be in Russian:ru:Внешняя политика Островов Кука consular officers in cases of Monaco and USA here, and of course, do not mean a diplomatic relations (only the "official" relations, in this cases consular relations).

Consensus should always be for the inclusion of items in the list. At the Monaco and the USA is obviously not. Jan CZ (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is needed for any change, regardless whether inclusion or exclusion.

Monaco: CMD, what do you think about it?

USA: I don't think we should rely on negative proof (missing from a list) in case where we have multiple positive proofs - sources showing US Ambassador accredited, including quote of Ambassador words stating that. Japinderum (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

USA - Do you think US department of state "forgot" the inclusion of CI to its list? It really could not get along. To deny official data from Government sources on the basis of interviews of third persons is more than bold and cannot agree with it.

Monaco - A situation of the USA deals with as Monaco. The CI consul in the US does not mean diplomatic relations CI + USA. For the eventual diplomatic relations Mo+CI you need source, consul is not proof.

If it would be in the discussion, consensus has been reached concerning the classification, it is necessary to achieve consensus in the debate again on decommissioning. But USA and Monaco included by one author without discussion. The classification is disputed. Until the achievement of consensus should not be on the list. Similarly I was downloaded in another case of me standing on another hand-picked list. Is returned only after I defended its inclusion in the debate. You have not yet released a list of the US+Mo. Jan CZ (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

For the USA, it's pretty good negative proof, especially as we also have the Factbook source which explicitly notes no direct representation. The ambassador is probably able to deal with the CI due to his position with New Zealand.

As for Monaco, if there's nothing indicating it's more than a consular office, then it doesn't seem to qualify. It still falls under the scope of this article however. CMD (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I propose to this part of the article (as well as for Foreign relations of Niue) gave the standard appearance, i.e.. the standard table, such as. on Foreign relations of Armenia.

In cases of USA+Mo, in second column can be "n/a", in notes column can be the informations on consular relations and about consuls. I see no reason for the current obsolete non-standard solutions of article. Jan CZ (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not obsolete non-standard article, just the common format for such smaller lists (I can point you to many other articles with this format).

Consensus is needed for any change the stable version of the article, including removal of long present list entries.

So, for both Monaco and USA we have consuls, which fall in the scope of the article (maybe a note can be added for Monaco about "consular relations").

USA list missing - I don't know who forgot what, but errors happen when compiling such lists. Also, I don't see a date of the last update - is it before or after 2005? And note the remarks they put "This guide brings together information on these subjects from among diverse and widely scattered documentary and archival sources." and "Please note that additional country articles are undergoing review for publication."

Of course the Factbook states "no representation" - currently there isn't, but there was in 2005. The new ambassador hasn't presented his credentials yet. That doesn't contradict the statement of the former ambassador.

"interviews of third persons" - not of third persons, but of an US Ambassador! And we have his direct words, not some journalistic interpretation: "I’ve been privileged to be accredited to Samoa and the Cook Islands." - and note to CMD: he doesn't mention Niue, which would've been expected if he mentioned CI only because of NZ. So, he was accredited to New Zealand, Cook Islands, Samoa and not to Niue. In any case we should not interpret his words - he says he's accredited to CI and that's what's relevant for this article. Japinderum (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is not interest of editors to expand this section into a form such as in Foreign relations of Armenia where good place for each State in the table, to complete the information on missions, relations of the ad, OK. But I think there is enough appropriate information to this article for expanding and be more interesting for readers.

Monaco – I don't mind at all to leave Monaco in the article. But while maintaining the current form of the article should be added section Other official relations and Monaco move here. In its current form is unacceptable, if we say that there are diplomatic relations and no one source for it.

USA – No person on position is not at all the same as the absence of this position. An empty space indicates "vacant", but the Factbook shows that there is no Ambassador there. You claim that there was in 2005? It Was Not. Download version of Factbook of the year 2005. The Cook Islands are without US ambassador in exactly the same as in the current version!

Chip is probably right with NZ. And why the Ambassador made no mention of Niue? I think because Niue is insignificant. For example, on pages of MFA of the Czech Republic in the list of all countries Niue is missing completely, while Cook Islands have always been there, even before the establishment of diplomatic ties. Jan CZ (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Monaco is OK, I think adjustment of the map is a good idea. But what about US? We should find a solution, perhaps in the form of some Note? Jan CZ (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• edit conflict

I'm not against utilizing the format for bigger lists, but only if nothing is "lost" in the process.

Monaco - I reworked it, please check.

USA - do you have Factbook from 2005? 2005 before or after McCormick accreditation to the Cook Islands? Even if we find Factbook from that period AND there's no Cook Islands accreditation mentioned there - that still will be only a negative proof. Against it we have the words of the Ambassador himself. You can speculate that the Ambassador doesn't know what he's speaking about (e.g. makes a sloppy error) - but that's nothing more than a speculation. The same speculation can be made about the currently theoretical negative proof of "missing in the list of representatives" (as we haven't found such source so far) - e.g. the clerk maintaining the Factbook makes a sloppy error. Japinderum (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, Monaco is OK. You can download the online Factbook (.zip) and old sessions. It is difficult to find a clear explanation of these conflicting data about the American Ambassador. I have no better idea at the moment what to do than look for another sources or add Note about it to today text? Jan CZ (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want - add a footnote, but what should it state, so that it isn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? "Ambassador not mentioned in the 2006 Factbook.[source]" (I think McCormik term was 2005-2009, so if he was accredited in Nov.2005, as he claims to be, then I assume the 2006 Factbook should list him)? Japinderum (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the color in the map to agree with Monaco, edit text according to Monaco, and add a note about the claim of the American Ambassador, which is in contradiction with the official data from the US Government? Jan CZ (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Ambassador words don't contradict any official data. The contradiction is with the lack of data. Positive vs. negative. We have positive proof for "diplomatic relations" (Ambassador statement). We don't have positive proof for "no diplomatic relations" (there is no official government statement about that). We have negative proof for "no diplomatic relations" (lack of entry in a list). We need more than such lack to conclude that the US Ambassador words are incorrect. That's why I agree with adding a footnote about the discrepancy, but to the current version, not the other way around. Japinderum (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the omission at the website of Factbook is a clear negative proof. Although negative, but quite strong. That would within a few years the CIA has not been able to bring the Ambassador? During one year, maybe, but for several years? But well, there is no consensus for my proposal, so look for other sources, and can add a footnote about the discrepancy to the current version. Jan CZ (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

OK about footnote. I also hope you can find a definitive source, but I couldn't. Japinderum (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I need to repair my word. The source of the Factbook is positive proof. While in the first source, from the Chip, data on the Cook Islands in total is missing and in theory could be omitted (extremely unlikely) in Factbook are included in the Cook Islands. And about the US representative, there is a clear answer, including the rationale: "None (self-governing in free association with New Zealand)". And it has repeatedly every year, even in the years when the Ambassador should be accredited according to his Word. His claims are in clear contradiction with those elements that are positive and which are official. The US should be displayed as Monaco, including maps and with the possible endorsement of the entitlements of the Ambassador. Jan CZ (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Factbook isn't a positive proof. Factbook doesn't state anything about diplomatic relations, but about representatives. About that it contradicts the Ambassador words. It's also not more official than the Ambassador words. Both are reliable and unreliable in different ways. It's more unlikely that an Ambassador is wrong about the states he's accredited to than for a not-exactly-official (it's compiled by official US institution, but is just a public tool for easy reference, it's not an official document - with all accuracy caveats that brings) list to miss some detail of such obscure situation.

I think we should look for a source about US diplomatic accreditations in the years. "History of diplomatic corps" or something like that. Something that can directly confirm/disprove the words of the Ambassador. Japinderum (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As Factbook shows on the absence diplomatic representation, the Ambassador's words indicate the existence of representation. In the specific context of CI, however, it is not proof of the establishment of diplomatic relations CI + US. The only source that relates directly to the diplomatic relations, from Chip, shows to the absence of such ties. Here is not any proof about establishment of diplomatic relations US+CI. The US Embassy on NZ represents US interests on the NZ+CI+Niue [5]. The US recognise NZ sovereignty over the CI+Niue [6], and probably therefore with the CI + Niue not established dipl.relations. Jan CZ (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There can be diplomatic relations without representation, but there can't be diplomatic representation without relations. The history of relations and recognitions source CMD pointed to doesn't say "there are no relations" - it just doesn't list the Cook Islands - that may be a negative proof, but also an omission. For us to write something that contradicts the words of US Ambassador we need something more than a negative proof. US can't recognize "NZ sovereignty over CI+Niue", because the NZ itself doesn't claim such sovereignty. That's what enabled those states to establish diplomatic relations with all their partners in the first place. As you can see all diplomatic relations are established after 1990s when CI and Niue finalized their gradual independence steps and got hold of their foreign and defense affairs from NZ. Of course, the US may withhold recognition of CI or Niue (for whatever reason they wish) and also may decide not to establish diplomatic relations with them. The dependencies table you brought is interesting and actually the best example of source contradicting the US ambassador, but still not delisting CI/Niue may be an omission (understandable keeping in mind their "sneaky"/gradual status upgrades).

Can we get McCormick accreditation notes/term records from some archive? To check whether he really was accredited to the Cook Islands? Japinderum (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The US can recognise whatever it wants to recognise. I note the summary on the NZ website page doesn't mention the CI even though it mentions Samoa, neither does the allgov website. Perhaps the ambassador's statement was a sign of evolving relations. Perhaps he was just making a nice farewell speech without wanting it to be overanalyzed. However, there's no way it can hold enough weight to make the statement when compared to everything else here. You can double check at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want. CMD (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The current NZ ambassador isn't accredited to CI, nobody disputes that. But the former was. The allgov source is outdated (e.g. from the time when McCormick was ambassador) - and we don't know whether it was written before or after McCormick accreditation to CI. You are the one overanalyzing and interpreting the ambassador words. He clearly states that he's accredited to CI. So, check at WP:RS/N if you want to change the text to contradict the words of the Ambassador. Japinderum (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

An RfC may be better than RS/N actually, if everyone is happy with that. CMD (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Japinderum (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Japinderum, can You give to the article Your propose of footnote (consensus from 17 October 2012) please? Thanks. After it, it will be OK from me too. Jan CZ (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Footnote added. But regarding the maps you place (here and at FR of Niue) there are several problems - their contours look like a screenshot and such blank map is most probably copyrighted (the PNG maps have a determined and free origin); updates and SVG conversion can be done also to the other maps (I already updated them), so those aren't advantages; Greenland and New Caledonia are colored wrong (those are not part of the EU); most importantly - the topic here is political and not geographical - the SVG map contours are much more life-like and detailed and that's a disadvantage - they are distracting and especially unusable for small states (Palestine, Qatar, South Ossetia and others are barely visible) and small island states, also too many non-state islands are depicted (which can't have diplomatic relations, thus don't add any value to the map) increasing the distraction and making it more confusing and difficult to read; there are too many lakes (whose display has no value in a political relations map) also increasing distraction and confusion and difficulty of reading; Cook Islands and Niue are on the other side of the map from the rest of the Pacific Islands Forum members (while physically correct detail, this is also worse for comprehension - again, this is foreign relations map, not physical geography one); as a whole - the PNG maps are much more "clean" and have better "ease of use". Japinderum (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notes, text is fine. We should have added also text that we don't have any sources, speaking directly on the maintenance of diplomatic relations between thess countries, and vice versa, that on lists such as this list of all diplomatic relations information is missing. Regarding the map, I used a public domain map File:CountriesRecognizingSouthSudan.svg. Free maps, including empty ones, there are many, including in SVG format. I don't think that would be violations of any copyright. New Caledonia is depicted as part of France, not the EU. Same case as on your map. Greenland is the OCT of EU. If You do not agree with chart of OCT, okay, I can remove it. However, for the vast majority of articles (Foreign relations of.., List of diplomatic missions of/in..), EU is not displayed. Personally I prefer to display only States too, it is the standard. Greater accuracy doesn't seem at all confusing to me. On The Contrary. In my map reads well to me, it looks better, the map boundaries are more evident. Orientation in map without a problem. The accuracy of the maps could be even greater then in my map, let us not underestimate readers. But this seems to me to be optimal. I deal with graphics, the PNG map I don't like. The PNG map is so simplified, that looks like a child's coloring book. And thanks to dim borders are much worse to reading. This is, of course, a matter of personal opinion or taste. Let's agree on what to do generally with the EU (where appropriate, what with the OCT). Jan CZ (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK about New Caledonia - yes, it's part of France. But Greenland is not part of the EU - it's only an OCT (at the link you gave you can see that EU law doesn't apply to Greenland and also about its withdrawal). The EU is displayed as CI/Niue have diplomatic relations with it, among the very few diplomatic relations established and for example Niue doesn't have diplomatic relations even with Belgium (where its EU embassy is located). There is no reason to remove the EU.

The South Sudan map has the same copyright issues as the SVG map here - both are claiming "own work", but most probably the base empty map is taken from somewhere else (maybe a free image, maybe not). In contrast - the PNG map has its origin clearly stated.

The PNG map is simplified and that's why it's better. You can't have diplomatic relations with Hawaii or Galapagos islands, etc., so displaying those is unnecessary (and only increases confusion). Those maps serve two main purposes: to quickly/easily show with whom diplomatic relations are established; and with whom there aren't established. Having such unnecessary details complicates it very much, because while the contours of most states one land are easily distinguishable for the islands it's not clear whether part of which state they are, etc. The purpose of those maps is to display those who establish diplomatic relations, not every rock and small landmass curve.

I agree if you want to convert the PNG into SVG or to change the color of the borders, etc. It's the contours in your SVG variant that are too complicated and unnecessary for the topic depicted and that's why I disagree with those. Japinderum (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK about EU and OCT, Greenland is removed. The original source (the blank map) found and added to the description of the map. This SVG map is used in dozens of cases like ours without any problem. Under the compromise, I removed the national lakes, they were really unnecessary. Jan CZ (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now remains the problem of numerous unnecessary (for the topic here) islands that clutter the map - they can't have separate diplomatic relations from their "mainland". Also, if you shift it sidewise it will be much better (e.g. the empty space between the left edge and Alaska to go to the other side of the map, so that all Pacific states are on the same side. Yes, that will move also Hawaii to the other side as well and "discontinue" it from the USA - but Hawaii is one of the islands that are also not needed to be displayed). Also, a few lakes remain and few more miniscule states can be changed for round-points as they are currently almost invisible even at 2000px zoom. Japinderum (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Small Islands nothing shall prevent, is not a reason to delete it. However, You have good idea with the location of the CI+N. So, I moved the map, to be CI + N on the right side. And, added wheels for small States (South Ossetia, North Cyprus and Palestine). Jan CZ (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The same applies to Niue map. Falkland islands and other european dependencies are colored wrong (those that aren't part of the EU or a member with bilateral relations). And now North Cyprus is bigger than South Cyprus - I think both should be circles. Qatar, Bahrain, Abkhazia are also barely visible. Circles in general will be better a little bigger. The problem with the unnecessary islands is the following - having those makes it much more complicated to use the map, for example to quickly glance/count the Pacific states that have relations/don't have - Hawaii, Galapagos and many even smaller ones come into the way (e.g. you have to know they're there, identify who is who, etc. - especially hard for the smallest ones depicted), depicted on the map, but irrelevant for its topic. The same in the Atlantic, Caribbean, etc. For starters, I think you should remove all small islands that aren't sovereign states, then for Bahamas, Maldives, Cape Verde, Trinidad, Timor (it's especially problematic in your map - when Indonesia gets colored the same it looks just like one more Indonesian island and is easy to miss out), Solomon you should add (or replace with) circles. Japinderum (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Map of Niue and colors of OCT, of course will be completed. Several of the circles can be added. I disagree with the removal of any islands. Jan CZ (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you disagree? Those islands are irrelevant for the topic of the map and their presence obscures the information the map portrays. Having the big items like Alaska, New Caledonia, etc. is fine as those are easily distinguishable, but keeping minute irrelevant (as in "not establishing diplomatic relations, foreign relations taken care of only by 'the mainland'") islands among similarly sized sovereign states (who establish their own diplomatic relations) makes the map unusable. Japinderum (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The map (CI) is complete, check it please. Circles are bigger. Each small islands State has its circle, so the resolution (from non-sovereign entities) is clear and possible counting of States is not a problem. Jan CZ (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely an improvement! I still find it "too busy" to my liking, but oh well... I think it will be better if Abkhazia is only circle - and for others that have very small non-circle part left after placing the circle to be only circles too. I would like also Karabakh, Kosovo, Qatar and others with almost-circle-size to be circles, etc. Japinderum (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can see the boundaries of Abkhazia, it is possible also in East Timor, Gambia, etc., but border was not deleted just for circles on other maps and deleting I see as not so good idea... after deleting a looks quite unnatural, I tried it. I think, countries which are larger than the circles are visible enough, I tried add it also, but circles not helped to be better visible (Libanon, Kosovo, Katar). But added circle for Karabakh, here it have sense (graphically more complex territory). And moved Bahrain circle, to be clear that circle is for different state than Katar. Gambia circle is bigger, I forgot for it at last. Look on map and check it please. Is it possible close edit and repair by the same style map for Niue? Jan CZ (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. It's not exactly to my taste, but we won't reach 100% agreement anyway :) Japinderum (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Map of Niue has been corrected also. Complete. Jan CZ (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cook Islands to establish relations with South Korea

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/10/120_122925.html Ladril (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Formalised: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/south-korea-formalises-diplomatic-relations-with-cook-islands/1092996 2602:306:C4B1:6650:69E5:E758:47DC:A6A3 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Bilateral relations of the Cook Islands

I've been working on articles about bilateral relations of the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands are the only State that has never had one this article (Niue's has one article China–Niue relations). The first article Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations, however, was nominated on deletion. Refer to the discussion and, where appropriate, make Your point of view. Jan CZ (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

On MFA website of CI was published the current list of States with which the CI established diplomatic relations [7]. Every countries from our article are here. Only Ireland and USA are not in the list. As regards Ireland, our source [8] was incorrectly interpreted. Cook Islands is placed between States not having the Irish Ambassador, but only have Ambassador in Ireland. But in this group are the CI as pending. Therefore, so far without any Ambassador. The current list of November 2012 [9] shows that the CI still have no accreditation in Ireland. (Ireland also does not have accreditation in CI [10]). So we have no proof of diplomatic relations. The request for accreditation of the CI has not yet been processed (or has been rejected or withdrawn), the relations have not yet been confirmed. Ireland certainly cannot be placed as the State maintain diplomatic relations with CI. It must be marked the same as Korea. Jan CZ (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an exhaustive list. In the list of international organizations memberships there are many missing.

For establishment of diplomatic relations it's not required to have an ambassador, it's the other way around. You first establish relations and then sends an ambassador. Korea is quite a different case - there we have a source explicitly stating that "relations will be established in the future". Japinderum (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, diplomatic relations are commonly being made without the appointment of ambassadors. We, however, have no evidence that was happen. Relations can be pending with ambassador (both no confirm). Jan CZ (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Cook Islands is in the section about ambassadors. There is another section below that specifically mentions diplomatic relations and for example states that activation of such with Haiti is proposed for 2011. Japinderum (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is nothing about diplomatic relations with Cook Islands, no evidence that was established. Jan CZ (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, then it can be changed into "not yet established" like Monaco and Singapore (it already has a footnote). Japinderum (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Consent. It's Done. Jan CZ (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand responsible for defence and foreign affairs

The Cook Islands is not an independent country. It is effectively a self-governing part of New Zealand. New Zealand is responsible for defence and foreign affairs. How then does CI sign treaties with other countries? There should be a section on this anomaly.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Cook Islands is more than just "a self-governing part of New Zealand", although you're right that (A) it's not fully independent and (B) the article ought to say something about where New Zealand figures in to the equation. I've added a sentence to that effect to the lede. Legally, since 1965, New Zealand acts in foreign affairs and defence on the Cook Islands' behalf only on the Cooks' delegated authority. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

USA

On MFA website of CI was published the current list of States with which the CI established diplomatic relations [11]. Every countries from our article are here. Only USA and Ireland are not in the list. In the case of the US, it's further strong (negative) proof. The minimum required is to supplement the Note, see previous discussions (23 Dec, 11:45). But I'm inclined to include USA as Korea. I think that the current display of the US on the basis of very weak proof about relations is very problematic. Jan CZ (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an exhaustive list. Ireland is also missing and afterwards in the list of international organizations memberships there are many missing. Anyway, I don't object if you add additional sentence in the footnote about the missing of USA from that list.

Will you update the map to be much less cluttered as it currently is barely usable? Japinderum (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The United States does not have diplomatic relations with the Cook Islands. They are not listed as a country by the State Department. On the issue of an ambassador being accredited, a diplomatic mission can have consular or other accreditation to a state with which the sending state does not have diplomatic relations. The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi has responsibility for Bhutan, for example, despite the absence of diplomatic relations. - ILBobby (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Accreditation of the Ambassador to the receiving country is clear proof of the existence of diplomatic relations. On the other hand the existence of diplomatic relations miss on lists of countries of the CIA. The US also continue miss on the CI government web page list of countries that have established diplomatic relations with CI. The existence of relations is so highly disputed. Undisputed is the only existence of consular relations. I propose, therefore, to reclassify US to the section of the consular relations, and the possible existence of diplomatic relations to mention in the note. Jan CZ (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The very updated list of states with diplomatic relations with the United States is published by the US Department of the State. The Cook Islands are not listed here as state with diplomatic relations with the United States nor as a state (CI are listed as dependencies and areas of special sovereignty). The situation is clear, according to the US Department of the State no diplomatic relations exist between US and CI. Aotearoa (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The US ambassador is responsible for relations with Cook Islands because it's part of the Realm of New Zealand. He is not the ambassador to the Cook Islands. It'd be like saying the US Ambassador to the Netherlands is accreditd to Aruba, because it's part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, therefore the US recognizes Aruba as a sovereign state. It's an incorrect inference/deduction. Stop putting it back on the page. We should be thankful the ambassador did not say he was accredited to Mars. - ILBobby (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)