Tests pose diplomatic problem for NZ.

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33452, 6 February 1974, Page 12

Tests pose diplomatic problem for NZ.

By

ROBERT HORROCKS

’ \ZP.A .-ratf c.v.-e.-pond,-:r,

WASHINGTON. February I. A diplomatic quandary faces the New Zea- : land Government this j year as a result of the I French decision to cons tinue nuclear testing in 5 the South Pacific. Any anti-test resolution at this year’s United Nations General Assembly is likely to , receive at least as much support as did those last year and in 1972. But it will be extremely difficult, according to diplomatic analysts, for New Zealand to achieve, in conjunction with its Pacific partners, much more than has already been accomplished. It is conceded that Wellington has swung a great., . deal of moral force behind its jargument against the testing i; The decision last year to ;!send a frigate to the testing i;grounds at the Mururoa Atoll • fwas hailed in diplomatic ! quarters as a Shrewd alten-Jtion-grabbing move which, jwas successful in dramatis-] i !ing the issue. ; But “Where to now?” is I J the question to which there ;! appears to be no immediate '! answer. A World Court ruling .(against the French would] iprove useful in diplomatic;

probing of possibilities But there is no means of enforcing the Court's decision. The attitude of the United States might be a ke\ factor. It is apparent that within the United States State Depart ment there is a good ileal • sympathy for New Z< case. The prospects of con verting this sympathy into something more concrete appear, however, to be bleak. At top levels the Administration is not inclined to 'add the testing to the already long list of topics on which Washington and Paris do not see eye to eye. This is conceded by those within the department who display sympathy for the New Zealand cause They frankly admit that the Administration has what it regards as much more pressing problems to negotiate with Paris. A proposition which also

has attracted attention within the department is (hat <a ~ ing for a nuclear-free .'one tn the Pacific. The idea has not been iv sassed strongly. It m\ .\,s a number of "fishhooks.’ eluding the position ■ t American niu (ear suhma: : ■ < cruising m the region as pa : ot Allied delence sltalegy The United Slates already under strain in maintenance ot bases abio.u: Il is negotiating with (he British for am hoi it j. t. ■ >. ■ struct a St S2ont base .u Diego Garcia, a liny Iniitoi Ocean island south of Ind .-. I his would take the place ■’ facilities it is losing at Bahrein. in the Persian Gull Would a Pacific nucle.t free zone embrace the giant United states base al Pea Harbour? What about thstatus of us military fane lies in the Philippines 1 These questions are not an severed. -Should the prop"-: non embrace the loss of these facilities it is almost certain that the United Stales would remain opposed to the idea On the other hand, the definition of the zone might be 'drawn to cover the South Pacific, stopping south of Hawaii but covering the Mururoa testing area United Nations young pat terns of last year and 19,2 indicate that a South Pacifu nuclear-free zone would he supported by many South anil Central American nations Asian countries also would almost certainly have ai least an open mind on the issue. It is not apparent, however. whether Wellington hayet made up its mind on the line it will follow this ycai in maintaining pressure ■r. France to stop its Pacific testing.