THE PRESS FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1980. Mr Muldoon’s chairmanship

Press, 28 November 1980, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1980. Mr Muldoon’s chairmanship

The question of whether the Palestine Liberation Organisation should be accorded observer status in the International Monetary Fund and in the World Bank is a complex one. The difficulties are apparent because since the question was raised at a meeting of the two in Belgrade last year, and was referred to a special committee by the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) then chairman of the World Bank and the 1.M.F., three meetings of that committee have failed to resolve the issue. The members of the committee are the same as those who agreed to serve in the first place, except that Sweden has replaced New Zealand. Mr Muldoon will preside over the meeting in a personal capacity, but has a casting vote as chairman. Previous votes have been split. Mr Muldoon may have some difficult decisions. To a large extent the question is a legal one. Does the P.L.O. have the proper qualifications to be accorded representation? The P.L.O. has observer status at the United Nations and thus any decision of the committee Mr Muldoon will preside over is not necessarily going to create a precedent. If the P.L.O. is granted observer status will this make various other organisations, such as the I.R.A. eligible too? The answer is probably not. because the P.L.O. is recognised by a number of countries as representing the Palestinian people. New Zealand, in its'last major statement on the Middle East, given by its Permanent Representative to the United Nations on July 23 this year, stopped short of recognising the P.L.O. as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. The relevant sentence in the statement, dealing with the settlement of the Palestinian question, reads: “The search for a solution must involve the participation of the Palestinian people, including the P.L.0., along with all the other parties directly involved.”

The world status of the' P.L.O. is both a legal and a political question. The Arab countries want the P.L.O. represented as part of a world-wide recognition of the P.L.O. Of the Arab countries Saudi Arabia has been particularly forceful in seeking P.L.O. recognition at the I.M.F. The United States has been strongly opposed to P.L.O. recognition. Whatever the committee decides is likely to leave many countries unconvinced that the committee is right. The greatest fear is that

the question will split or even destroy the two world financial institutions. Saudi Arabia is already a major contributor to the funds of the I.M.F. and its withdrawal would be disastrous. The world is staggering through a series of financial crises already and various changes within the I.M.F. would make the path easier. Collapse of either the I.M.F. or the World Bank might be catastrophic for the world economy.

• Although the committee cannot avoid political ramifications however it decides, the question before it is fundamentally a legal one. This makes it all the more curious that Mr Muldoon has chosen as his legal adviser, not a Government legal adviser with international experience but Mr J. D. Dalgety, his personal lawyer who has become known to the public at large because he has acted for Mr Muldoon in defamation cases and because of his association with the anti-abortion group, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child. Mr Dalgety is a Wellington barrister and his experience includes work with the Government and acting for firms with overseas interests. He is not, however, well-known for work in international law. In selecting Mr Dalgety, Mr Muldoon has passed over the Government staff employed to deal with precisely the kind of problem needing complex legal ingenuity and having international ramifications. If there was any reason why Mr Muldoon should not take a Government legal official. New Zealand has two other lawyers, Professor R. Q. Quentin-Baxter, who has a wide international reputation for international law, and Professor Ken Keith, of Victoria University, of Wellington, who has considerable experience in international law.

Mr Muldoon may feel that because the invitation to preside at the meeting is in his personal capacity he should have his personal counsel attending. That may be the case. But in such a setting he cannot avoid also being known as the Prime Minister of New Zealand. If he wants his personal counsel then he should say so and there may well be a case for the New Zealand taxpayer allowing the Prime Minister to take him along. But the Prime Minister is also representing New Zealand and should take with him a senior Government legal adviser from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.