COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL OVERSEAS POSTS MILESTONES ON MARCH TO NATIONHOOD

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32734, 11 October 1971, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL OVERSEAS POSTS MILESTONES ON MARCH TO NATIONHOOD

(By

C. R. MENTIPLAY)

our Parliamentary reporter)

WELLINGTON, October 10.—We seldom hear in New Zealand the phrase “march to nationhood,” though in Australia it has been used consistently for the last 25 years. Perhaps this is because of New Zealand reticence, or to regret for the days that are gone—but there is no doubt that New Zealand has moved all the way to self-determination.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the expanding role of our Ministry of I'oreign Affairs, which lias had an existence (partly under its previous title of External Affairs Department) for no more than 28 years.

During that time New Zealand has set up 28 overseas diplomatic posts—a one-a-year average. Recent developments, including Britain’s pending membership of the European Economic Community, have already dictated some notable changes. The move to admit I the People’s Republic of i China has indicated some I more.

Within the next few years it may be anticipated that New Zealand will re-establish its abandoned Legation in Moscow, and will place another one in Peking as soon as the necessarily lengthy negotiations are concluded. Whether this will mean the establishment of a complementary post in Taiwan is not known—but New Zealand’s sponsorship of the seating of Communist China in the United Nations is coupled with support for the continued presence of the nonCommunist Republic of China based in Taiwan. For some years now Taiwan has been represented in Wellington by an Ambassador with full powers (Mr Konsin C. Shan), with two counsellors, two secretaries and a commercial attache. Though the amount of trade between the two countries has greatly increased, the expected reciprocal full diplomatic representation has not yet come about. An urgent need has existed for some years for a New Zealand diplomatic representative in South America. This has been paralleled recently by pressure from primary producer boards for New Zealand trade representation in that area. The diplomatic and trade levels are different—but as far as the New Zealand posts are concerned there is a history of close co-operation. The emergence These and other plans will: ensure the continued expansion of the Ministry of l Foreign Affairs, in a pattern: which did not exist before the passing of the External Affairs Act 1943. Before that, New Zealand was greatly dependent on the diplomatic channels of the United Kingdom for its overseas contacts, and was really nothing more than an overgrown colony. The existence of a separate New Zealand policy, indeed, does not appear to have been pressed before the accession of the Labour Government in 1935, when the New Zealand spokesman, Mr W. J. (later Sir William) Jordan expressed an individual New Zealand viewpoint at the League of Nations on such matters as the Spanish Civil War and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia.

There were even some brushes with British spokesmen (a previously unheardof event), and when this was raised in the House of Representatives, the then Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Peter Fraser) commented: “It was time somebody spoke. The country has to make up its own mind on international problems as a sovereign country. Though we work in closest co-operation with the British Government, that does not mean to say that we must be prepared to swallow everything the British Government care to put forward.”

This view is interesting—particularly because, only a year later, New Zealand readily accepted as her own the United Kingdom declaration of war against Hitler’s Germany. Plainly there were times to differ, and times to stand together. The beginnings of New Zealand’s own team, and its development to the present stage, owe much to the work of Sir Carl Berendsen, Mr A. D. Mclntosh, the late Mr Foss Shanahan, and the present Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Mr G. R. Laking). Rapid expansion has brought its own problems—but within the Ministry the standard has been kept very high. Early concentration on “covering the main bases” — with High Commissioners in the main British Commonwealth countries and representation at Washington and the United Nations—has already given way to a wider conception of diplomatic coverage. The wider view In the Pacific-South-East * Asia area New Zealand now.

has nine senior diplomats (ofi Ambassador or High Commissioner rank). These include Sir John Grace (Fiji), Mr R.' L. G. Challis (Indonesia), Mr] R. H. Wade (Japan and! Korea), Mr E. H. Halstead] (Thailand, 5.E.A.T.0., Laos), Mr R. L. Hutchens (Malaysia), Mr R. B. Taylor (Philippines and Hong Kong), Mr H. H. Francis (Singapore), Mr W. G. Thorp (Tonga and Western Samoa), and Mr P. K. Edmonds (South Vietnam). I This build-up of diplomatic strength in the Pacific area has been matched by the diplomatic offices established in the European Common Market countries. New Zealand was adequately represented at all the main points in time for vital discussions earlier this year. The following senior diplomats now represent New Zealand on the continent of Europe: Mr B. D. Zohrab (Western Germany and Austria), Mr M. Norrish (Belgium, Luxemburg, and the E.E.C.), Mr O. P. Gabites (France), Mr M. S. Roberts (Greece), Mr I. L. G. Stewart (Italy), Mr R. R. Cunninghame (Netherlands).

Considering the small amount of New Zealand representation which sufficed only a few years ago, this has; been a tremendous build-up. It is obvious, however, that; there is much still to do if] New Zealand is to make full] use of the independence which is being forced upon her. At least one senior post is needed in Eastern Europe, and planning for this may be expected as soon as possible. The Middle Eastern area obviously requires closer examination from a trade and diplomatic viewpoint. “The big one” For many years, the position of New Zealand High Commissioner in London hasi been our key diplomatic post.] Today this is still so, for.our representative (Sir Denis

(Blundell) is backed by a staff of 36 officers.

There will always be a New Zealand High Commissioner in London—but after Britain’s entry into the E.E.C. becomes history, the diplomatic centre for New Zealand in Europe will inevitably move to Brussels, as capital of the European Economic Community. This will entail the transfer of many officers from London. Already we have noted a draining-away of prestige and desirability from many of the post of the “Old Empire”. The High Commissionerships were once eagerly sought after by former Ministers and political appointees. Today, there is certainly no waiting list. The High Commissionership of India, Ceylon and Nepal has remained vacant for some time.

Mr D. J. Eyre has just been appointed to Canada for a second term, and in Australia Mr A. J. Yendell is half-way through his term. As the career diplomats of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gather in strength and numbers, it is likely that they will take over the remaining preserves of the “amateurs”—though the indications are that there will ] always be a place for the i diplomat who has been ‘politically rather than diploimatically trained.

When he introduced this year’s annual report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sir Keith Holyoake said: “We are now close to a watershed in the history of New Zealand.” It could be that New

Zealand is better prepared for survival as an independent nation on the other side of that watershed than most New Zealanders would believe. Our emergence as a nation with diplomatic [responsibility has not been 'slow—but it has not been (allowed through forced 'growth to develop a mush(room tendency.