COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL DIPLOMATIC LINKS NEEDED WITH ARABS AND AFRICANS

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33450, 4 February 1974, Page 16

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL DIPLOMATIC LINKS NEEDED WITH ARABS AND AFRICANS

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON, February 3.—The three-man mission which left Rome on Friday on a so-called “good-will mission - ’ to Arab States indicates quite dramatically the representational problem which confronts New Zealand today. Recently our Minister of Finance (Mr Rowling) made a quick trip to Iran. There is an obvious link between these visits and the fact, that New Zealand obtains more than 80 per cent of its oil imports from this area. It must also be remembered, however, that New Zealand has no direct representation, either diplomatic or trade, in Africa, or in the southern Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf.

New Zealand's progress from the status of a selfgoverning Dominion of the British Empire to an independent nation has been on the reluctant side, when we realise that the Statute of Westminster was passed 43 years ago. New Zealand leaders chose to follow Britain in the new pattern, and it was not until 1947 that the statute was formally adopted by this country. Our External Affairs Department (now the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) began in a very small way under the first Labour Government. Although New Zealand High Commissioners were at the main points of the Empire, and we had embassies at Washington and Moscow, bv the war’s end, it was scarcely recognised that this: implied a separate diplo-: matic existence. It was assumed that wherever Britain had a diploI matic post, New Zealand, as a dutiful member of the family, could make full use of it. This way of dual thinking was formalised in the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act, 1948. But even that was a long time ago. The impetus came from Britain, as before but this time it involved a complete ! separation. “Mother England” wished to join the European Economic Community. and it soon became apparent that continued family associations between Britain and Commonwealth members with full self-gov-erning status would not be appreciated by the parent’s new associates. Advance to Europe New Zealand's diplomatic posts rapidly extended into the Common Market countries. This was complemented by other expansion, which took New Zealand into South-East Asia and the Pacific but always on a shoestring basis. It was as if the old system existed, and New Zealanders could always turn in emergency to a British post, or perhaps an i Australian one . . . I This is perhaps why, over the years, New Zealand’s diplomatic expansion followed the pressures of the moment rather than the dictates of a long-term policy. The establishment of a diplomatic post is an expensive business, and immediate returns are not readily perceptible. Today New Zealand has more-or-less direct diplomatic representation with more than 50 countries, although the number of capitals at which our diplomats are in residence would oe less than half this. Too often during the post-war years, when a Secretary of Foreign Affairs has been convinced that a certain post is necessary, it has been ruled out at Cabinet level on the grounds of expense. During Mr Kirk’s recent visit to Southern Asia it was suggested several times that a separate post was needed at Dacca, capital of Bangla-

desh instead of the present, link with far-off New Delhi.! Mr Kirk himself emphasised! the need for strong diplomatic and trade offices in the capitals of all countries of the Association of SouthEast Asian Nations (A.S.E.A.N.). Planned general expansion is there, for the foundation stone of a new Chancellery for the High Commission in New Delhi has been laid, and ground has been acquired for a New Zealand office in Port Morsby, to be built as soon as Papua-New Guinea achieves full nationhood. But the whole of the African Continent is without: New Zealand representation.: So are the Arab States. Is-! rael, and the Persian Gulf ! Though South and Central! America have received some! attention, there is an urgent! [need for building up,| specifically in Brazil and: [Mexico. : The question is: Where' | are the priorities? Who can i afford to wait longest? How! [much money can be spent in! I irrigating this diplomatic! [jungle? Where to go? j The mission headed by the; Deputy Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Mr J. V. Scott) and our Ambassador to Italy (Mr P. N. Holloway) is visiting the Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrein, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Recent visitors to Wellington have been emissaries from Iran. Egypt, and the Emirates. It seems likely that a New Zealand diplomatic post will be established in this area Possible choices would include Cairo or Teheran, withj [Kuwait an outside possi-l ibility. If this post is given! I priority over Africa, the as-! [sumption is that the African! [post would follow quickly. i Here again the field is! wide open. We have nd diplomatic or trade representative in South Africa, al-' though the Republic ofi South Africa has a consulgeneral in Wellington. To send a diplomatic represen-'

itative to Pretoria would not Ibe a logical move by any I New Zealand Government at present. It becomes obvious that one post on the African Continent would be worse than none at all. The solution could be diplomatic posts at several points, with cross-accredita-tion. One system would have New Zealand diplomatic representatives at Pretoria, Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi, with strong trade links. Australian pests Our rival, Australia, has dealt with the whole problem in a very far-sighted way, and is already well established both in the Mediterranean and in Africa. Australian legations cover Africa from the Cape to Cairo. Australian ambassadors are resident in Cairo and Pretoria, and there are high commissioners accredited to Botswana, Ghana. Kenya. Lesotho, Nigeria. Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. . The Australians have taken steps to retain an effective presence in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf i areas also. There are resident Australian diplomats in Iran and Bahrein, as well as in Israel, Malta and Athens. Apparently Australia has no doubt as to the value of diplomats in such places. If there ever were any New Zealand doubts they are quickly diminishing. The oil crisis has assisted positive thinking on the one hand, and on the other it is recognised that, the world is rapidly passing into a system of barter trade in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate diplomat and trade commissioner. . Bipartite trade has been 'difficult for New Zealand ■until now. If today trade , with some nations may I come down to an effective (exchange of needed commodities, oil for sheep or milk products, then such exchanges may first have to 'be negotiated on a diplomatic level. And whichever ■ way we turn it does seem i that Australia has reached a 'similar conclusion before us.