No Nuclear Weapons Or Bases For N.Z., Says P.M.

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30146, 1 June 1963, Page 10

No Nuclear Weapons Or Bases For N.Z., Says P.M.

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, May 31.

The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said tonight that the Government had no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. Nor did it have any plans for nuclear bases on New Zealand territory.

He rejected a proposal for a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific—“l want to see the whole world a nuclear-free zone,” he said —and declined to support unilateral nuclear disarmament. “I must emphasise that it is the Government’s primary duty to ensure the defence of the people of New Zealand and to preserve our freedom and independence,” he said. “Our own efforts must be backed by the arrangements we have made with like-minded countries, principally the United States, Britain and Australia.”

“Our common efforts and common attitudes are embodied in formal alliances, notably the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty, and in our deep-rooted and intimate relationship with Britain,” said the Prime Minister.

Mr Holyoake said that these were the considerations uppermost in the Government’s mind in evaluating the problem of -nuclear tests and nuclear weapons and New Zealand’s attitude towards them. “I have made it clear recently on several occasions that the Government wants to see an end to all tests by means of an international test ban treaty which would include adequate provisions to ensure that it was observed

“We want such an agreement not only because of the potential dangers of radioactivity from tests, but because of the even greater danger of the further spread of nuclear weapons to many other nations. “Unless an agreement can be reached, it may be too late,” he smd. “Nuclear Stalemate” “The problems involved in obtaining such an agreement can be solved only by the great military Powers, but no country great or small can expect to escape the consequences of failure, just as all will benefit from success. “New Zealand will certainly do what it can to aid progress towards a test ban treaty and towards measures of general disarmament, both nuclear and conventional. “Pending a substantial area of agreement, however, a situation of nuclear stalemate exists with both Western and Communist powers possessing a terrible destructive capability. “What should be our attitude in this situation?” asked the Prime Minister. “There are those, the unilateral nuclear disarmers, who contend that the Western Powers should set an example by voluntarily divesting themselves of their nuclear weapons. “That view is open to the fundamental objection that it would expose the West to the risk of Communist aggression or nuclear blackmail. “The record of Communist expansion since the

Second World War, in Europe in the years immediately after 1945, when the Western Powers were disarming, and later in the Far East, South and South-east Asia, leaves no room for supposing that unilateral nuclear disarmament could have anything but disastrous . consequences for those whom the Communists have made their adversaries. No New Zealand Government could take any other view. Neutralism Rejected “The logical consequence of a policy of support for unilateral nuclear disarmament, as its advocates recognise, is political neutralism. “The question is; while doing our utmost to further serious negotiations for disarmament, do we stand by our allies, with all that their reciprocal commitment to us means to New Zealand, or do we withdraw to an ‘uncommitted’ position of neutralism?

“The latter course would mean the repudiation of our allies and a complete reversal of New Zealand’s traditional ties and sympathies. The Government cannot accept any such course. We will stand by our friends and our commitments.

“I know there is a school of thought which believes that the fearful problems of nuclear weapons can best be solved in our part of the world by the creation of a nuclear-free zone, which would include the South Pacific. Nuclear-Free World “Although the South Pacific is a vast zone, it is too small for me. I want to see the whole world a nuclear-free zone by means of an all-embracing disarmament agreement. “How can Asia and the Pacific be separated strategically by the imaginary line of the equator?” he asked. “Does not the whole area lie under a threat of Soviet power as well as Chinese communism with its massive potential in land forces and probable nuclear capacity in a few years’ time?

“This region as a whole is one of the two principal world zones of military confrontation. We cannot adequately deal with the problem by trying to keep nuclear weapons out of par-

ticular purely by declaration.

“History has shown that it is a delusion to hope to preserve peace by such means. The Cuban incident is a striking case in point. If war should occur, what likelihood could there possibly be that such undertakings would be kept or that the declarations would be respected by countries outside the region or not party to the declaration? “The Pacific, after all. Is a vast international waterway open to all nations and so great in extent that observance of any declaration oouild not simply be taken on trust. “It seems in these circumstances that a guarantee that the Asian and Pacific region will be kept nuclear-free could only be given at the stage when broader measures, which would include conventional as well as nuclear weapons, had been agreed on. “Immense as it is, this is the real task to which we must direct our utmost energies. It demands firm readiness for defence and the willingness to engage in long and patient negotiations,’’ said Mr Holyoake