THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1979. The A.N.Z.U.S. talks

Press, 10 July 1979, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1979. The A.N.Z.U.S. talks

Like the meeting of the Association of South-East Asian Nations a few days before it, the A.N.Z.U.S. Council meeting in Canberra last week spent most of its time discussing the huge outflow of people from Indo-China. Mr Brian Taiboys, the New Zealand Foreign Minister. Mr Andrew Peacock, the Australian Foreign Minister, and Mr Cyrus Vance, the American Secretary of State, all blamed Vietnam for the exodus. None had any solution to the problem, which is of such dimensions as to threaten stability throughout SouthEast Asia.

The other main subject discussed at Canberra was related to the first: the fighting in Kampuchea caused partly by the presence of Vietnamese troops, and the fear that the fighting will spread into Thailand. The United States is giving its support to Thailand, but the emphasis at Canberra was on discussion, not on the formulation of new policies. The fear of renewed fighting between China and Vietnam also lay behind some of the concerns.

The Canberra meeting was preceded by what appear to have been extensive talks among the three Ministers on the flight from Bali to Australia. The character of the A.N.Z.U.S. Council talks has changed during the last few years. In 1976, New Zealand managed to get the economic health of the partners taken into account in discussing contributions to security. This move was accepted by the Americans, but they have since shown signs of being nonplussed by the mixing of economics and defence.

Having got past the customary assurances of American interest and commitment to South-East Asia and the Pacific, the talks settle down to a session in which the Americans brief the Australians and New Zealanders on world developments. This year’s session was marked by the seniority of the American official, the Secretary of State himself. The range of subjects covered

is extensive. For New Zealand and Australia, the A.N.Z.U.S. Council provides a valuable opportunity to meet top American officials. It is the only institutionalised arrangement for such a meeting.

No significant differences appeared among the three concerning defence matters. New Zealand and Australia wanted to ensure some military supplies, but that issue was resolved. A meeting held under the defence agreement between New Zealand, Australia, and the United States may not be the appropriate place for the formulation of a policy to resolve the problems of Indo-China, but in the absence of such a policy various Governments are reviewing their aid to Indo-China and making assessments of Hanoi’s intentions independently. The results will not necessarily help the refugees.

Both major political parties in New Zealand regard A.N.Z.U.S. as the cornerstone of New Zealand’s defence policy’. Unlike the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, A.N.Z.U.S. has not had a secretariat. It exists as a mutual security treaty, based on the treaty itself and on the good will which exists among the three countries. Since 5.E.A.T.0., for all intents and purposes, is defunct, A.N.Z.U.S. is the only treaty which binds the three countries together.

The Americans and the Australians consider that the New Zealand Labour Party’s policy of a nuclear-weapon free zone in the South Pacific endangers A.N.Z.U.S. The Americans have apparently decided to place this issue before the New Zealand public. It may not be easy to resolve. It is to be hoped that the Labour Party will not treat the matter lightly because the relationships with the United States and Australia are critically important for New Zealand’s trade as well as its defence. Many problems, including the tragedy of the Indo-Chinese refugees, cannot be dealt with alone.