THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1980. Spending on defence

Press, 21 February 1980, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1980. Spending on defence

I’fi'e''increased spending on defence by Australia is bound to increase pressure rthi-the New Zealand Government to Sease. defence spending as well. The meeting of,the. A.N.Z U.S Council has .Sheen "advanced. It will be held later this.month instead of, as usual, in May. S The “Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Taiboys, will attend the talks in Washington on his way home from Europe. ' The Minister of Defence, Mr Gill, has already rejected the idea of New Zealand spending more on defence. President Carter recently announced increased defence . spending for. the United States. Of the three partners in the alliance, New. Zealand has made no similar gesture. A further factor is that both President Carter and the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, are being rather more forceful than the New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, in trying to persuade sports bodies .to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow. A gesture of some otherkind might still seem to be needed.', Pressures to increase defence spending have .. ..been present in the United States, in Australia, and in New Zealand for a considerable time. The Soviet.invasion of Afghanistan brought the whole issue to the fore in the United. States... The published reports of the increased Australian spending so far have not linked the decision to the Soviet invasion: but it is not a difficult jump to make. The concentration ofAustralian defence forces on the Indian Ocean is clearly in response to Soviet forces there. The threat seen to oil shipping from the Gulf and the Soviet presence in Afghanistan provide the context if not the prime cause of the decisions. It is clear, however, that both the United States and Australia already had plans under way before the Soviet invasion, and that what is happening is, in both cases, a packaging of proposals already under consideration.

Should New Zealand follow suit? New Zealand’s ageing defence equipment, including its Orions and at least one of its frigates, will need replacement, and the Army will require some mobile equipment if only so that New Zealanders can serve from time to time In-such roles as the cease-fire monitoring force in Rhodesia. But it would be ill-considered for New Zealand to announce increased defence spending simply as a gesture against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Nor is the Indian Ocean an area of prime concern to New Zealand. The latest figures of Soviet ships in the Indian Ocean is 31, though, as with all such: figures, the number may not in itself reveal the

" strength compared with the 20 United ’ States Navy . ships there. Australian politicians have a long record of crying wolf about the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean. Attempts have been made previously to attract American warships to Western Australia, and Australia, feeling close to the United States because of Mr Fraser’s recent two trips there, sees in the Indian Ocean a way of co-operating with the United States. These moves are defence measures but they have more than a whiff of politics about them. Mr Carter is fighting his Presidential election this year and is more than a little pleased to find Mr Fraser, so close to his own thinking. Mr Fraser may fight an election this year and his Liberal Party has long found it. politically profitaljle to talk about the defence of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition in Australia,. Mr. Hayden, is even showing some signs, of preparing to fight a khaki election. Yet both these elections will be held and some of the heat might go out of the defence issues. Other issues will remain. Although the increased American spending on defence will create a number of jobs and boost the economy during a time of recession, there will be a severe cost in inflation. The world has not yet recovered from the inflation created by American spending on the Vietnam War. Mr Carter, or whoever wins, may try harder to bring inflation under control. Mr Fraser has severe unemployment problems which will be little helped by his increased defence spending. Unless the Soviet Union attempts another opportunist jump—and the international political costs of the one in Afghanistan have been high indeed for the Soviet Union—-the world is likely to have to take stock of itself without the present heat. The conclusion that is likely to be reached is that detente is too precious a thing to throw away altogether. Western assesment of how detente is seen in Moscow is likely to be different, but it has not been in accord with what the Soviet Union has been saying it understands by detente . in any case. After the American election the United States is likely to count the cost of abandoning the second • Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and find it too great, both in defence spending and in use of land for weapons systems to oppose Soviet nuclear arms. The Soviet Union, for its part, is also likely to want a limitation to hold costs down. It is a pity that Mr Gill’s response was couched in terms of New Zealand not having the same, resources, but' the effective decision was the right one.