Towards a defence policy for

Press, 23 May 1977, Page 16

Towards a defence policy for

STUART McMILLAN

in Dunedin.

reports from a defence conference

The great debate on defence (will history accord it capitals?) did not begin at the Foreign Policy School run by the department of university extension at the University of Otago this month, but it continued on its wavering way there.

Lieutenant-General Sir Leonard Thornton, a former Chief of Defence Staff, urbanely wove nis way through the arguments about New Zealand defence and concluded that since New Zealand was incapable of defending itself, its safest bet was to play a credible part in the alliance system of the Pacific Security Treaty (A.N.Z.U.S.). The low amount New Zealand spent on defence, did not amount to playing a credible part. This was sound, orthodox stuff. Military men the world over- think that defence spending should be increased and the figures (about $75 a head in New Zealand, about $2OO a head in Australia, and about $5OO a head in the United States) supported his argument. He introduced the idea of close co-operation, even integration, with the Australian Armed Forces, citing the significant progress that had been made by the establishment of a joint policy co-ordinating committee on defence. He . recognised that this would mean some loss of sovereignty to New Zealand, but wondered if it would not be worth while. This was less orthodox. Ext-nsive co-operation already exists, but a merger is a different matter. At question time a few people toyed with the idea, but it remained unresolved.

Sir Leonard had probably been floating the idea. A second idea that stayed afloat for the rest of the conference arising from his talk was the relationship between Australis, and New Zealand.

Commander Dudley J. Harris, a former Deputy Director of Defence Intelligence in New Zealand, in his paper, “Pacific Defence Policies as they are related to New Zealand,” also criticised defence spending and described how Soviet nuclear submarines, stationed off the coast of the Unite-1 States now, will soon be able to do their ghastly job of “covering” the cities of the United States without straying much further than their major base at Vladivostok. One of the most interesting things to emerge from

Commander Harris’s address was that the Navy bitterly opposes being assigned the sole task of fisheries patrol. To hear some Navy people talk one would assume that New Zealand ought to establish some minor service such as a coast guard while the Navy sails off to attend to more important matters. The impression is probably exaggerated for the Navy realises that if such work has to be done then the Navy is the obvious force to do it; but Navy men do not want their role confined to that. They are caught in something of a bind' because they might get some of the money they want if they show they need it to look after the country’s fish. Mr lan Mac Gibbon, who is employed as a historian in the Ministry of Defence, looked mainly backward and presented the most coherent view of New Zealand defence policies that has yet appeared. It was almost unbelievably coherent. Mr Malcolm Ross argued that power enabled a country to coerce others and that the development of weapons might, quite suddenly, put one of the super-Powers in the ascendant.

Doctor Dalton A. West and Dr Barry Gustafson discussed the Soviet Union, Dr West emphasising its .history and making the point that the Soviet Union had a very long coastline on to the Pacific.

Doctor Gustafson traced the links between the Soviet Unio- and New Zealand. His main point was that the Soviet Union has become a major market for New Zealand goods and that this

country should not go out of its way to upset the Soviet Union. The ratio of trade runs, at the moment, 44 to one in New Zealand’s favour. Neither saw the Soviet Union as an imminent threat to New Zealand. In fact, the conferer.ce was hard put to it to find a threat anywhere. A panel discussion on China saw no threat to New Zealand from China.

Doctor Jerome B. Elkind tried to oblige. In a long paper in which he appeared to be saying that collective agreements were all right so long as they suited international law, he finished up resoundingly by saying that A.N.Z.U.S. itself could be regarded as the threat. An American, he argued that New Zealand had no guarantee of American help under A.N.Z.U.S., that most Americans did not know where New Zealand was, and that, in any case, they would not allow American forces to defend it. If New Zealand became non-aligned it might avoid retaliation in the event of nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States. No guarantee: no A.N.Z.U.S.; no A.N.Z.U.S.: no threat, he argued.

“Are you trying to say that A.N.Z.U.S. is peanuts?” inquired a voice from the floor.

To say that seme of the Service people at the Foreign Policy School begged to differ from Dr Elkind’s viewpoint might be understating the position by a few kilotons. But the paper cieared the air.

Even if the position might not be sustainable Dr Elkind’s paper stimulated a real debate. One member of the audience had already