‘Discrimination’ for N.Z. to bar Japan

Press, 28 December 1977, Page 18

‘Discrimination’ for N.Z. to bar Japan

PA Wellington New Zealand would be discriminating against Japan if it allowed countries such as South Korea and Russia into its new 200-nautical mile fishing zone but excluded Japan, the second-largest buyer of New Zealand's agricultural produce. This has been asserted by Mr Shu Otaka, editor of the “Daily Fishery Correspondence,” ’ a Tokyobased newspaper covering the fishing industry in Japan, in a letter to the “Evening Post.” In his three-page letter, Mr Otaka said Japan’s imports, its contributions towards New Zealand fishing resources research and development and the national security factor should allow Japanese acess to the zone. High-ranking New Zea--1 a n d officials had frequently declared that guarantees to increase Japanese imports of agricultural products constituted a prerequisite for granting Japanese fishing vessels entry to the zone. But he feared that the New Zealand people might not be fully cognisant of Japan’s share in their country’s global exports. Japan ranked as New Zealand’s second-biggest export customer, second only to the United Kingdom, whose imports had been falling, while Japan’s had risen from less than 5 per cent before 1965 to 15 per cent in 1976.

New Zealand’s exports to Japan in 1976 were worth $454M with imports from Japan S4I6M, yielding a favourable balance for New Zealand of S3BM. Total agricultural exports from New Zealand to Japan had grown from SI3BM in 1972 to $245M in 1976 with meat shipments rising from SSM to S9M, Mr Otaka said. “I have no way of knowing the size and period of any guarantees that the U.S.S.R. and South Korea may have extended for the stable importation of New Zealand agricultural products. “But the above trends clearly demonstrate which country, over the long run, has been most reliable and offers the best prospects for the future,” he said. New Zealand now had the fourth largest exclusive fishing zone in the world, the result of the Law of the Sea Conference. “Japan has had a long fishing history, second to none, in New Zealand waters and has also made immeasurably larger contributions than any other nation to resource study and development of hitherto unused resouces within this area,” Mr Otaka said. The Law of the SeaConference referred to giving zone rights to countries for reasons including “national inter-

ests” and he believed it referred to interests originating from the sea, for example, national security. “Even if, for the sake of argument, I undertake to broaden the interpretation to include other factors — such as foreign trade problems — Japan’s important position in New Zealand’s trade would make it totally impossible to concoct a reason on these grounds for excluding Japan from entry negotiations,” he said. It was even less so when Japan’s traditional catch record and her manifold contributions toward research and development of the resource was taken into account. “I am forced to consider it discriminatory and totally devoid of fairness to ignore Japan’s efforts over a long period and grant only other countries access to the zone while denying such access to Japan,” Mr Otaka said. There was an obligation to consider the scope and length of any guarantees of trading opportunities that each of these other countries seeking' preferred access was promising to New Zealand, Mr Otaka said. “Even brushing aside Japan’s contributions to date to New Zealand’s fisheries, I fee! New Zealand has an inherent obligation to expose clearly to the scrutiny of the entire international community t he substance of reasons given for kicking out Japan.” It was Mr Otaka’s view that trade and fishing problems should be taken up separately. Trade problems had their roots in a country’s industrial structure and could not be solved overnight, while the current fishing problems had been discovered in the development of the law of the sea. “In spite of Japan’s contributions to its fisheries, New Zealand talks as though Japanese fishing vessels would not be permitted to catch even a single fish in its zone whereas Japan, even with any criticism that is being directed against it on trade issues,, is in no way declaring that it would not buy a single ton of New Zealand’s agricultural