Panel Argues N.Z. Foreign Policy

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31348, 19 April 1967, Page 16

Panel Argues N.Z. Foreign Policy

An economist, a historian and two parliamentarians last evening took up at times similar and at times divergent points of view on a number of questions involving New Zealand s foreign policy posed in the course of a panel discussion arranged by the Historical Association (Canterbury).

The result was stimulating, provocative and frequently amusing.

Those participating were the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand), representing the National Party, Mr J. Mathison, M.P., representing the Labour Party, Professor Angus Ross, of the history department. University of Otago, and Mr W. Rosenberg, reader in economics at the University of Canterbury. Professor Ross, discussing whether New Zealand had a dominant theme in its foreign policy, said it was a moot point as to when New Zealand started to have a foreign policy of its own. Its capacity to do so had been limited by its colonial status. He said New Zealand had been a very devoted follower of the mother country up to when the Labour party gained office in 1935 when the emphasis shifted to collective security. New Zealand then became most concerned with its own security, and its standard of living became a close second.

Mr Shand said that “wrap it up how you like,” foreign policy was determined by relationship with other countries.

“Let’s be frank about it. When we talk about aid programmes for undeveloped countries we are trying to create a world in which we can live peacefully. We have a selfish motive.

“The security of a country demands that it endeavour to have a continuous foreign policy. Each political party should be concerned with building a foreign policy we can all live with, and take measures against violent swings,” he said. Mr Mathison said it was not until the end of the Second World War that New Zealand had a dominant theme in its foreign policy, and that was protection from outside aggression. Collective Security

Mr Rosenberg said the essence of New Zealand foreign policy should be the collective security of the weak against the strong. The ideal was a parliamentary democ-

racy carried into the international field, not an alliance with a big power. He said that New Zealand policy from 1935 ot 1948 gave it more credit and more friends in the eyes of other countries than any other act it had ever carried out Mr Shand said there was much to be thankful for in New Zealand’s non-entry into federation with Australia. However, a closer co-opera-tion would probably achieve most of the advantages that were sought. He said trade imbalance with Australia had risen historically. It was now four-to-one against New Zealand. It would be a “long slog back” and the position might never be entirely equated. Mr Rosenberg said that New Zealand was drifting with no vision and no future. It was looking for someone to replace the old relationship with Britain. What it intended to do was vital to its future.

He said that New Zealand had made a wonderful contribution to the community of nations by playing a leading role in collective security. It

could make an even greater contribution because it stood alone.

He said that it was part of Australian policy to get greater dependence of New Zealand on Australia. The trade Imbalance in 1964 was £49 million, and in 1966 this had risen to £53.6 million. On defence policy, Mr Rosenberg said New Zealand had never been able to defend itself, but had relied on British or American power. "I don’t believe a country which believes it cannot defend itself will survive. We have always relied on other countries to do the dirty work for us, and others have relied on us to do it for them. The idea of New Zealand being able to defend itself has never occurred to a New Zealander.

“Switzerland made peace its business and made its business a roaring success by deciding it could defend itself,” he said. Mr Shand said that during the Second World War New Zealand had no reason for thinking it could defend itself by anything other than pacts of security.