Nuclear-free zone impractical—expert

Press, 11 August 1979, Page 9

Nuclear-free zone impractical—expert

A unilateral declaration of a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific is impractical, believes an American expert on South Pacific affairs, Dr R. A. Herr. Dr Herr is a lecturer in; political science at the Uni-I ■versity of Tasmania and has! been an observer at numer-j ious South Pacific conferences. He was a member of the twoman commission to review the function of the South Pacific Commission in 1976, and has published books on the subject. He is in New Zealand to lecture at Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch on the topics of regional cooperation in the South Pacific, and on United States interests in the region. He has said in Christchurch that it was unlikely that the South Pacific nations could declare a nuclear-free zone in defiance of the major powers.

“It can be seen historically that any attempt to outlaw war or make vague declarations of principle such as saying: ‘You can’t come into our waters,’ is impractical.” Dr Herr said the United States Navy took the view that it could not afford to identify which of its vessels carried nuclear weapons by keeping them out of areas known to be prohibited to nuclear ships. The big Powers would probably view it simply as a statement of principle by the nations involved, rather than as a rigid stand which they were not in a position to enforce anyway.

Dr Herr was asked whether the United States in particular would be willing to risk being seen to violate the wishes of sovereign nations. “The U.S. would probably treat it in the same way as it treated the unilateral declaration of a 200-mile territorial zone by certain South American nations in the mid--19605,” he said. “They did not prevent their fishing boats from entering those waters, having the attitude that the declaration was somewhat high-handed.” The only real alternative to this kind of general statement of principle would be to sit down and negotiate. “Then you get into the whole S.A.L.T. thing all over again.” Dr Herr thought it unlikely that the present Government of either New Zealand or Australia would contemplate the sacrific necessary to unilaterally declare such a zone. This sacrifice would almost automatically be the abolition of the A.N.Z.U.S. treaty, he said. Even though previous Lab-

our governments in both New Zealand and Australia had floated the idea, he doubted whether they, too, would be willing to take this step.

Dr Herr said there had been a discussion of the nuclear issue at the South Pacific Forum in Honiara last month. “The island states do not like it in principle and would prefer that it not be intro-' duced further into their re-1 turn,” he said.

At the present time of relative tranquillity the United; States could afford a great I deal of generosity and would: not press the issue too much. However, under certain circumstances it could be expected to override the question of good will, “simply because they are playing in a different league from the South Pacific islands.”

In spite of his comments about the futility of declaring a nuclear-free zone unilaterally, Dr Herr said it "could not hurt” South Pacific nations to make their feelings clear on the subject.