THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1980. Armed neutrality debate

Press, 1 May 1980, Page 20

THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1980. Armed neutrality debate

Part of the talk given by Commander R. Ryan, director of the Commission for the Future, on defence last week dealt with what he called “sacred cows” in New Zealand’s' defence thinking. Judging from the immoderate reaction . of the Minister of Defence, Mr. Gill, to a reasoned and able exposition of an alternative defence policy for New Zealand to the present one, Commander Ryan must indeed have paraded some “sacred cows.” Debate within the country about foreign or defence policies is what democracy is all about. Mr . Gill made three points of use to the debate: that various other countries are increasing spending on defence; that armed neutrality might affect trade; and that New Zealand would be unable to police the Exclusive Economic Zone. The points can be disputed but they are reasonable. It is a pity that he could not have confined himself to them instead of references to “small boys lacking in education.” As a Minister of one department that deals with external matters he should have shown some awareness that his words, which give the impression of trying to stifle discussion, will be noted widely overseas. Commander Ryan’s argument is an interesting one. He sees New Zealand’s isolation and its long coastline working for the defence of the country and that any attack on New Zealand would take the form of a nuclear attack, a blockade,, or an invasion. A nuclear attack, he argued, would only take place if New Zealand were part of an alliance. New Zealand could probably survive a blockade indefinitely: trade would be cut but the people of the country would neither starve nor freeze to death. An invasion would require such a huge force that the costs would be too great. It is at that point that the armed part of the neutrality comes in: unarmed the country may be prey practically to a band of adventurers, whose motives might be mercenary or ideological. But with an armed and trained force the exercise of invading New Zealand could be made so costly that no country would risk it for fear of leaving their own defences vulnerable, Besides, invaders would get food arid land, but not-much else.

Only two comparable countries are Western, democratic, and not part of an alliance or with a defence treaty. They" are Sweden and Switzerland. Neither has even joined the European Economic Community. Both are world traders and both fall into .the category of “armed neutrality.”, Both have compulsory military service and in Switzerland’s -case practically every mature male forms part of the military force and keeps.his uniform and.rifle.at home.. Although Switzerland and.-Sweden are marked by humanitarian concerns, Switzerland being the home of the

■ International Red Cross and Sweden .. being the home of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, both countries are also distinguished by having a large arms industry, with a considerable export trade. Some of those who favour a form of-. neutrality consider that the world expenditure, on arms is great enough as it is. Armed neutrality for New Zealand might well increase spending on arms, not reduce it. The over-all spending on defence in New Zealand might well rise. Commander Ryan, who referred to this point, thought that armed neutrality could be done for more or less the same price as being a member of A.N.Z.U.S., but such restricted spending has not been the experience of Switzerland or Sweden. Mr Gill would be hard put to it to sustain the argument that under armed neutrality New Zealanders would find other countries fishing close to its shores. It is not the American or the Australian Navy that now polices the Exclusive Economic Zone.

Both Commander Ryan and Mr Gill referred to isolation, the former to say that this would not happen, the latter to-say that it would. In the long term it is difficult to say what could happen. In the short term New Zealand would almost certainly find itself isolated from two of the countries closest to it: Australia and the United States. Part of New Zealand’s argument to Europe to take New Zealand produce relies on the general like-mindedness of New Zealand and the democratic countries of Western Europe. For New Zealand to become neutral would cause something of a sensation and would almost certainly, have, some ramifications for trade.

Yet there is another argument which deserves attention. That is that defence is not just a matter of ships and planes or people sitting on hillsides waiting for. the enemy but of' an international climate of opinion. In the region certainly, New Zealand’s links with ' the United States through A.N.Z.U.S. give its views weight which it.would not otherwise have. Moves are already afoot for New Zealand to become more independent in defence matters. It would be foolhardy to throw away good will in a dramatic gesture. Commander Ryan did a service in opening up the subject. In fact, opening up the subject was part of his intention. He had been asked to present the armed neutrality option and made a good fist of it. Last year there was a minor attempt by the United States to have defence, including the visits of nuclear warships to New Zealand, debated more openly in New Zealand. It is better that the debate should come from New Zealanders. Even if Commander Ryan’s argument was not totally convincing, the points were well worth making.