THE PRESS SATURDAY, APRIL 19, 1980. Breathing space on sanctions

Press, 19 April 1980, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, APRIL 19, 1980. Breathing space on sanctions

President Carter’s decision to delay imposing sanctions against the supply of food and medicines to Iran gives New Zealand a welcome breathing space. The New Zealand Government could tell Mr Carter point blank that it cannot, entertain the/stopping of meat sales to Iran; although New Zealand would not be alone in rejecting an American request for sanctions, the avoidance of such a blunt rejection is all- to the good in New Zealand’s relations with the United States.

In spite of his statement that he has been getting a good response to his plea for support in the struggle to get American diplomats out of Iran, Mr Carter seems to be recognising that other countries, much more dependent on Iranian trade than is the United States, are not willing to inflict on themselves more harm than they are likely to inflict upon Iran by trade sanctions.

The immediate loss of sales would be bad enough for New Zealand; yet the, cost in the short run might be bearable if the gesture produced the desired results. The effects on New Zealand might, however, last a long time and still the effects on Iranians might be of little consequence. An end to the killing of stock for Iran, and Iran’s almost inevitable insistence that slaughtermen would be withdrawn from New Zealand,/might well mean that the trade would never be revived. This is not a possibility that New Zealand can take lightly. Reliability of supply is an important consideration for any food importer and no Iranian Government, even a much better disposed Government than the present incredible regime, would easily forget that New Zealand withdrew its trade.

The problem is broader than concern with Iran. New Zealand has long been arguing that world trading in agricultural products should become more open, and that the freeing of world trade in industrial products should be applied equally to agricultural products. Some of New Zealand’s closest friends internationally maintain restrictive trading policies which have limited the areas in which New Zealand can sell. This not only has an effect on production, but also on price. The more markets that are open, the more likely the price is going to stay up. Because of the restrictions, New Zealand has looked for other markets. After trying for years with the Middle East, the efforts are paying off. To sacrifice one of the most important trade successes would be to damage New Zealand’s efforts unreasonably.

If New Zealand were to stop selling/food to Iran it would also look foolish in its international trading position. The United States and Western Europe would probably be sympathetic towards New Zealand’s seemingly inconsistent move into self-imposed restrictions on its exports and recognise the exceptional circumstances; to other eyes the inconsistencies would be glaring. By no means all the developing world, which includes many Middle East and other oil producers, or Eastern Europe, would be very interested in the distinction that would apply in the Iranian crisis.

President Carter may find it hard to get compliance internationally with what he wants to do. Many countries are watching their figures for unemployment and anything, such as trade bans, that would make these worse is likely' to be regarded with disfavour. Another consideration is that the Middle East countries have become markedly richer at the expense of oil importers. The great accumulation of money in those' countries, including Iran, has upset the world monetary system and some alleviation is gained through selling to them.

If stopping all trading were very likely to persuade Iran to release the hostages, probably most friends of the United States would join in and smudge the details and ignore any short-term inconvenience or loss. Unfortunately for Mr Carter, nobody really believes that economic sanctions are likely to be followed quickly by Iran’s . decision, in desperation, to release the hostages. Even in times when the problems were simpler, the process of blockading or starving a people into submission was a long affair.

President Carter has the politically challenging problem of trying to get the hostages released. He has not, to his credit, overtly used the crisis to help himself to get a new term as President; but he cannot stand a chance of : re-election if he fails to act strongly on behalf of the hostages. His options are diplomacy, sanctions, and force. Force might well lead to the deaths of most of the hostages. Sanctions show little sign of working. The answer must lie in diplomatic effort, and the main effort must be made by countries other than the United States. The European Economic Community shows some signs of grasping the nettle. The E.E.C. does not owe it to President Carter to get him re-elected but it would be a demonstra-

tion of shared human values with /W Americans if it could persuade the Iranians to release the hostages.