Armed neutrality ‘alternative for N.Z.’

Press, 23 April 1980, Page 12

Armed neutrality ‘alternative for N.Z.’

Armed neutrality offers New Zealand a ■ defence alternative as valid as military association with other countries,., an international relations conference. in Wellington has beentold.

It could improve New Zealand’s . relations with the rest of the world, it could be managed within the present armed forces’ strength and budget, and it could bring civilian gains as well, according to Commander R. Ryan, director of the Commission for the Future.

His speech on neutrality as a defence option followed a policy statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mr Taiboys) on A.N.Z.U.S. Commander Ryan said later he was not espousing a cause but advancing an option specifically at the request of the conference organisers. \ “It is not the role of the Commission for the Future to take sides in these matters; we try to educate, not advocate,” he said.

In his speech, Commander Ryan said that preparedness for any threat New Zealand might face, short of nuclear attack, could be met by the armed forces at their present strength and by every New Zealander’s undergoing a year’s national-guard service. New Zealand should appreciate the advantages it gained from isolation,, from being impossible to blockade into submission and front being difficult and uneconomic to invade. “The cost of mounting such an exploit would far outweigh-the returns from a country, which has so little to offer in mineral or industrial' capacity,” he said. '

Similarly, the danger of nuclear attack could best be avoided by not being bound up in an alliance Which threatened any other country.

Neutrality would also enable New Zealand to opt out of World War 111, with its likelihood that at least one of the world’s proliferation ‘of manyheaded missiles could be spared “to take us out.” Since the only assets which New Zealand could offer a potential aggressor were food and land, Commander Ryan said, “the only eventuality we must consider is an attempt by another country to take us over.”

Organised resistance to such an attempt would mean the occupying army would have to be so large that invasion would be logistically untenable and economically disastrous. A trained national guard comprising all New Zealanders could mount such resistance and the country could also benefit from the. training and work involved in sustaining such ah organisation. Commander Ryan said everyone could be required to spend a year in the guard undergoing basic and trade training and then spending four months on work projects. The country would gain from a cheap work force of abefut 50,000 people, from a corresponding cut in unemployment, from a built-in fully operational civil defence system, and from the personal benefits that would accrue to all taking part. New Zealand’s present armed services were about the right size for such a change, Commander Ryan said, and to some extent even their equipment was well suited.

“Considering they were not designed for it, the ships and aircraft we now have are remarkably attuned to become a mari-

time patrol force,” he said. “Similarly, the size of the present Army, or expeditionary force as it now is, is very compatible

with the numbers required to, create a training elite for national defence. “Future technology also fits in remarkably well with any move towards an independent stance. “Microtechnology not only has the facility to make super weapons more accurate and more devastating; it also allows for a much cheaper and yet more sophisticated response at the other end of the military scale.” ' This extended even to

“one combatant sitting on a mountainside able to knock out a tank or an aeroplane or hold a division at bay using one simple tube launcher and a few smart missiles.” Non-violent civilian defence as a corollary to a non-aligned foreign policy could be an equally valid alternative to the present system of collective security, Commander Ryan said. The planning, budget and expertise involved in either case would be no more than New Zealand’ expended in its present defence stance. Earlier, he commented that New Zealand .faced hard choices that “do not leave us sitting somewhat uncomfortably on the fence of the past.” If New Zealand saw itself as part Of an industrialising area which included California, Japan, Australia and possibly the A.S.E.A.N. states, then it would be sensible to integrate its military position with theirs. On the other hand, if New Zealand chose a more independent and

self-reliant line, . then it would be equally sensible to change the defence posture to that of an active neutral.

Decisions on international relations therefore would stem largely from the over-all choice of what sort of society New Zealand wished to become.