N.Z. urged to avoid peace-keeping role

Press, 7 May 1981, Page 1

N.Z. urged to avoid peace-keeping role

By

GEOFF MEIN,

defence

reporter New Zealand would ; be '•‘extremely foolish” .to contribute troops to an American - orchestrated peace-keeping force in the Middle East, according to a Christchurch political scientist, Dr R. R. MacIntyre. He was commenting on report-” that New Zealand is among a handful of nations being sounded cv.t .to form a peace-keeping force to police the Sinai peninsula after Israel’s scheduled withdrawal next April. ?■ Military experts from the United States, Egypt, and Israel have met in Washington this week to draw up plans for the force, which is expected to be of 2500 troops. Countries, reported to have been informally approac’ ed to; take part include New- Zealand, Australia, Fiji, Canada, Nepal, and Peru. \ ■ > The Press Association reports from 'Washington that the United States will “shortly” formally ask other governments to participate.

Australia has not yet made a decision, but dip-

lomatic sources in Canberra expect a formal request from the United States. Government within tjie next week, according to a report in the “Australian.” The newspaper said that in spite of serious reser.ations by senior officials in various Government departments, including Defence, F< e-gn Affairs, and Trade and Resources, the Australian Cabinet is likely to agree to commit troops. . New Zealand Foreign ’ Affairs sources confirm that there have been informal approaches, but that no official request has been made. If it is, they say it will be considered. The Minister of Foreign .Affairs (Mr Taiboys) uas said that New Zealand would consider it essential that United Nations participation in the Smai force be “thoroughly explored.” But because the Soviet Union has said that it will veto,, the- force in the United Nations, the Americans are going ahead with plans to form their own multi-national force. Dr Maclntyre, co-con-vener of an Australasian Middle East study group, said that any peace-k:ep-

ing arrangement associated with the Camp David accords would be a risky venture for New Zealand. States that served in the force could be seen as endorsing the Camp David accords, which had never been accepted by several Arab and Third-World countries, because they fell short of solving the Palestinian problem. If New Zealand participated it might be interpreted as a partisan act, likely to cause a backlash from important Ar. j traders and Iran, which is now strongly pro-Palestin-ian. New Zealand exported more than $250 million worth of products to the region last year, the bulk going to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. New Zealand imported half its oil from Saudi Arabia and, in a crisis, would not want to be seen by the main oil producers as supporting a partisan stance against Arab interests, Dr Maclntyre said. “Rather than joining a peace-keeping force which will hold the flag for the Americans, Egyptians, and Israelis, 5 New Zealand should adopt a stronger stance at the United

Nations, arguing that Camp David does not go far enough in respect of the Palestinians’ demands for self-determination,” he said. If either Egypt or Israel violated the treaty, it might be difficult for the States in the peace-keeping force to remain impartial. Palestinian guerrilllas might try to move into Israel across the peace-keep-ing force line, Dr MacIntyre said. If they were intercepted and there was a punch-up, it would not be in New Zealand’s best interests to be seen taking pot shots at the Palestinians. If the Egyptian military seized power in a coup d’etat and repudiated the treaty, the peace-keeping force would “be left holding the baby.” “The Americans will try to rope in other countries to join the force to put a greater degree of respectability into their Middle East peace initiative,” Dr Maclntyre said. Defence sources say that they would be surprised if New Zealand agreed to participate in the force. However, if told to go, they envisage no problems “throwing to-

gether” a force.. It would give the Army something to do other than routine training, which ’has virtually been its. lot since the withdrawal from Vietnam. Apart from its interest in maintaining the peace between Egypt and Israel, other United States’ motives for sending a peacekeeping force to the Sinai have been suggested by defence and international affairs commentators. These include gaining experience in Middle East fighting, establishing a toe-hold in the region as a deterrent to the Soviet Union, experimenting with military equipment to prevent another incident such as the aborted Iranian hostage rescue attempt, and to condition the American-public to having United States troops in the Middle East. New Zealand may have been forced into a “Catch 22” situation: if it sends troops its international image might be damaged in the eyes of the Arab world with which it seeks to expand trade; and if it is asked to participate and refuses, it might offend the United States, a key defence ally.