WEST GERMAN VIEW British entry to E.E.C. must not founder on N.Z. problem

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32430, 17 October 1970, Page 19

WEST GERMAN VIEW British entry to E.E.C. must not founder on N.Z. problem

(By

DENIS WEDERELL,

editor of the Manawatu “Evening Standard")

It is unimaginable in Bonn that Britain’s application to join the E.E.C. should fail because of an inability to solve the New Zealand problem and the Commonwealth interests as a whole.

According to the opinion of an economic spokesman for the West German Government, the question of British membership is far too vital a political issue for these negotiations to collapse because of the New Zealand problem. Nor it there any desire in Germany to see a wider community more isolated from the world market.

Both the Federal Republic and the Netherlands had voted in the E.E.C. for freer world trade, and with British membership the Common Market would be gaining another vote in support of low tariffs and easier access, said the spokesman. The enlarged community could not, therefore, permit the arbitrary disruption of traditional world trade.

If a satisfactory solution could be found for the financial arrangements for British entry, the view in Bonn is the the New Zealand problem can also be solved—and must be.

Aware of problem

At the meeting of the Foreign Secretaries of the Six before the present negotiations began, there was a consensus on the importance of the New Zealand question to Britain and thus to the prospects of British entry into the Common Market. This group, and also the permanent representatives of their Governments in Brussels, are both well aware of the Dominion’s economic situation and especially its great dependence on the British market for dairy produce. They know that from the speech made by the Labour Government’s former Foreign Secretary, Mr George Brown, before the Western European Union in 1967, and also tom the same Government's White Paper published in February this year. The Germans, certainly, and the Six generally realised that there was no real economic alternative for New Zealand in the foreseeable future, such as a fuller development of industrialisation.

Some of the six, knowing that there was no short-term remedy, acknowledged that perhaps special provision would need to be made for the Dominion, even beyond the period of transition negotiated with Britain.

The E.E.C. must rely on a good deal of compromise to make headway at all, and the clearing of national interests is a large element in the business of the market, said the West German spokesman. “It is important for US' to see to it that what has been set up by the Six with considerable effort, and often after most difficult negotiations, including some of the now-famous marathon allnight sittings, is not put into question and put at the disposal of the negotiating parties right at the outset It is very important to keep up the positions and not to put everything into doubt again. What has been constructed over the 10 years of the community, while it has been created through compromise and is not an ideal solution, is vital to its further development

“So the E.E.C. can properly enter into negotiations with other applicants only if there is a balance among the Six. There cannot be any division among the present members, and die commission and the Council of Ministers must see to it that the community position is solidly defended to the extent to which that is justifiable. But perhaps at a later stage, one might look for compromise among the various positions (the Six on one hand and the four applicants on the other) and that would also cover New Zealand interests.

“Now we have not yet

reached that point, but are only exploring, trying to understand each other's positions. In Germany’s view, a solution for New Zealand must be found, but not yet. What Britain is presenting now in Brussels is not only the Dominion’s interests, but also her own: principally the cost of membership in terms of the national contribution to the common funds of the Six.

“But the Danes also have their special requests; the Norwegians are concerned about their industrialisation. There is a whole series of special interests and requirements under review. “The E.E.C. would be most foolish at this juncture in showing itself ready to accede to any one of these interests. The danger of a too-early conciliatory attitude would be to divide the Six, and the rather delicate basis on which the community exists even now would be shaken under the onslaught of too many deviating demands.”

French fears

“The French specially have clearly voiced their fears on that score during the 1961-63 negotiations. The E.E.C. team in Brussels then (1963) sometimes felt that the British were using political means in an attempt to split the members of the community off from one another. But this year there have been a number of very explicit statements by people in Britain, whose opinions are respected in Europe, that there will be no such manoeuvres this time. “The Conservative Government’s negotiators in Brussels would certainly be unwise to deviate from that course. Indeed it is possible that the experience of nearly 10 years ago led to the breakdown of the talks at that time,” said the spokesman.

The British are seen as solid and strong representatives of New Zealand interests and the attitude of the United Kingdom team on the transitional period for agriculture is cited as an example of this. They have said that three years would be enough for their industrial

sector, but have not said how much time would be required for the adjustment of their agriculture.

No reply

The community’s view is that the two periods should be the same, but the Six cannot extract from the British, even in response to a specific question, how much time they will want for agriculture. They say they want first to see the results of the present studies by the commission, and only after the scope of the problems (New Zealand’s interest and the Commonwealth sugar agree-

ment among others) is disclosed will they be able to say what time they will need.

If, for example, the British had said they needed six or seven years provided only that a satisfactory solution for New Zealand was found, the question of the Dominion’s interests would be split off from the other three principal issues for negotiation between Britain and the Six. Instead New Zealand’s agricultural interests and those of Britain are being kept together to the very real advantage of the Dominion, according to the View in Bonn.