THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1981. Sinai peace-keeping force

Press, 5 August 1981, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1981. Sinai peace-keeping force

After the signing of an agreement to set up a peace-keeping force in the Sinai, pressure on New Zealand and Australia to contribute to the force may be expected to increase. The official position still is that there has been no formal approach on the subject; in fact discussions have been held at a very high level between New Zealand and the United States on the question and it is a mere shading of meaning not to describe these discussions as a formal approach. The United States would like both New Zealand and Australia to contribute forces. Equally, for the sake of their relations with the United States as a whole and the new Reagan Administration in particular, New Zealand and Australia would like to oblige the United States. The questions arise about the reactions of other countries and whether it is in the interests of either New Zealand or Australia to contribute.

The views of the Middle East countries are of importance to the New Zealand Government. Both New Zealand and Australia appear to be acceptable to both Israel and Egypt — the countries between which a Sinai force is designed to keep peace. Without such acceptance further consideration would be pointless. They may not, however, be the countries most relevant to either New Zealand or Australia, both of which have extensive trade in the area. Although, for Australia, the most important trade partner in the Middle East is Egypt, Australia’s trade with some of the other countries in the region is immense. Iran is New Zealand’s biggest customer in the Middle East and Iraq is the next biggest. The views of these two are of crucial importance. While Iran has expressed no opposition to participation publicly, little coherent policy on any subject at all is coming from Iran. The convulsions that wrack Iran suggest that the country’s inner turmoil will absorb all its energies for some time to come. Iran’s attention may eventually focus on external affairs and the presence of an American force in the Sinai will be viewed unfavourably. If New Zealand participated in the force, New Zealand would also receive unfavourable attention, which might be expressed in restrictions on trade. The argument against this is that Iran needs lamb'and may not be able to get it from other sources. This is not an argument that should carry a great deal of weight with a country producing agricultural goods, when barriers to trade in agricultural produce are already numerous enough to make this possibility of little extra consequence. Iraq’s position is more difficult to determine. In theory Iraq must, according to its beliefs, oppose the participation of New Zealand or Australia in such a force. Iraq rejects. the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty under which such a force would be established and thus rejects any aspect of the treaty’s implementation. This is the view that has been put in New Zealand by the Iraqi Ambassador, Mr Faris al-Ani,

who is resident in Canberra. He has expressed similar views in Australia. The question may still be asked about practical reaction as opposed to theoretical objection. The truth is that no-one knows what the reaction might be. The question was put directly in writing to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq at a press conference late last month and, although it was read out, President Saddam Hussein made no comment on it. In the absence of any precise knowledge it seems prudent to rely on a reasonable guess and on instinct, both of which must lead to the conclusion that it is better to stay out of such a force. In fact, there is no enthusiasm for such a force either in Wellington or in Canberra. Another important Middle East country whose reaction would be of interest to both New Zealand and Australia is Saudi Arabia. New Zealand has little more than an American assurance that Saudi Arabia would have no objections. When the United States Secretary of State, Mr Alexander Haig, was in Wellington for the A.N.Z.U.S. talks in June he made the point several times that Middle Eastern countries would not object to the participation of New Zealand or Australia in the peace-keeping force. The relations of the United States with either Iran or Iraq do not suggest that there is any reason for believing that the United States is a sound judge of their views. American relations with Saudi Arabia have been improving and the Americans may be in a position for the moment to speak for the Saudis. However, the United States has shown no clear indication that it has grasped how strongly the Saudis feel about Jerusalem’s being under Israel’s domination. Differences of opinion, which might grow into an open split between Saudi Arabia and the United States, might occur at any time.

The participation of New Zealand and Australia in a peace-keeping force might help to keep peace in an area which is of great importance for trade. Yet it has to be remembered that the central issue affecting peace in the Middle East lies not between Israel and Egypt but in the position of the Palestinians. This was recognised in New Zealand’s last major statement of policy on the Middle East, delivered in the United Nations on July 23 last year. It also has to be recognised that the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Begin, is putting together a Government which will take an even tougher line against the Palestinians than any previous recent Government in Israel.

For these reasons the New Zealand Government should tell the American Government that New Zealand's interests may be endangered in any participation in the Sinai peace-keeping force. This is a matter on which the New Zealand and Australian Governments should co-ordinate their policies to support one another and to avoid the playing off of one country against the other either in the Middle East or in Washington.