S.A. boycott idea a ploy to counter tour critics?

Press, 9 July 1981, Page 1

S.A. boycott idea a ploy to counter tour critics?

BRUCE KOHN,

By

NZPA political correspondent

The aggressive attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) towards Commonwealth critics of his position on the Springbok tour is part of an over-all strategy to counter the international effects of the tour’s going ahead.

Official and political sources said yesterday that in raising the' question of a trade boycott of South Africa, Mr Muldoon had touched on “raw nerves" of Commonwealth political leaders and implied that if they were determined to press a political fight with New Zealand, it could become a “no-holds-barred" contest.

The sources said that in letting the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe (Mr Mugabe) know that New Zealand could support a trade boycott, Mr Muldoon was opening up lines of a political and diplomatic counter-offensive against Commonwealth African nations.

They said two lines of this strategy had so far emerged publicly. The trade boycott suggestion was one and the other involved his stated willingness to pursue-at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Melbourne in September the record of member nations in the field of human rights.

Many African Commonwealth nations are heavily dependent on South Africa as a source of both basic commodities and consumer goods, and as an export outlet. Countries in this category include Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Malawi. The first two. are among the so-called “front-line" States, with Angola, Mozambique, and Tanzania, in the struggle with South Africa for greater freedom for blacks there, and independence for Namibia.

Both Zimbabwe and Zambia are embarrassed by their economic need to maintain

trade ties with South Africa in spite of an intense dislike of the Government in Pretoria. But the need for their political leaders to keep trade links open is considered essential in a domestic political sense. Similarly, New’ Zealand Government back-benchers perceive the need for the Government not to intervene directly to stop the rugby tour.

It is apparent, international sources said, that Mr Muldoon knows that the Commonwealth African States are not able to shake off this trade link. Thus in raising the point that New Zealand could go along with a boycott of South Africa he is seen to touch a sensitive nerve.

A bonus for Mr Muldoon in using this tactic is that it also bites at Australia which has more extensive trade ties with South Africa than does New Zealand. The loss of trade, involved in a boycott would harm Australia much more than New Zealand. In supporting such an idea within the Commonwealth forum, Mr Muldoon would put strong pressure on the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) to appear no less willing to front up than New Zealand, particularly in the light of New Zealand’s being accused of showing less enthusiasm for the sports boycott of South Africa than the Africans want.

That Nigeria, one of Africa’s strongest critics of New Zealand, would also be put in a difficult position-was noted by these sources. They said that as a growing economic powerhouse of Africa, Nigeria would be looked to as a major source of support for the African

nations who w’ould suffer from the loss of their trade links'with South Africa. According to diplomatic sources there is no enthusiasm in Britain for a trade boycott of South Africa. It was pointed out that sanctions were largely ineffective in the drive to bring about majority rule in Zimbabwe. South Africa is much more self-sufficient that was its northern neighbour. But the British Government was also sensitive to its burgeoning multi-million-dollar trade ties with Nigeria. They said it would not want to be put in a position at a Commonwealth heads of government meeting of being required to do a difficult balancing act over its huge

trade relationship with South Africa.

Diplomatic dangers inherent in the unfolding strategy embraced a prospect that acrimony could be intense at the Melbourne meeting. This was. so particularly because the African nations were considered certain to see the Muldoon offensive on human rights and a trade boycott as no more than.a bid to divert attention from the tour issue. The New Zealand stance could cause considerable irritation in London and Canberra because of Mr Muldoon’s. seeming determination to hit back hard at his nation’s. critics, diplomats said.

A potential embarrassment for Australia, it • was said, was the fact that Western Australia had recently been, promoting a major trade drive with South Africa. “ '

Zimbabwe letters, Page 3.