Visits by nuclear ships

Press, 1 March 1984, Page 18

Visits by nuclear ships

The latest statement of policy by the Australian Government on its attitude to nuclear-armed ships visiting Australia may not be the final word on the matter. The statement by Mr Gordon Scholes, the Australian Minister of Defence, appears to be the result of rethinking that went on after Australia refused drydocking facilities to the British aircraft carrier Invincible last December. The Invincible had a faulty propeller and was refused the use of the dry dock at Sydney on the. ground that the British would not say whether the ship was carrying nuclear weapons. The Invincible had been in port. The ground on which it was refused use of the dry dock was that it was not Australian policy to allow nuclear weapons to be on Australian soil. The dry dock was considered to be “Australian soil” though the port was not.

After this decision the British and the American Governments sought clarification from the Australian Government on the point. The American Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, said: “This issue has to be nipped in the bud.” Mr Scholes could be said to be doing the nipping, though he may need to make a few more nips yet, He has reassured the Americans and the British that routine visits by nuclearpowered warships would continue to be welcome. He has said that the Australian Government recognises that its nuclear allies neither confirmed nor denied the carriage of nuclear weapons on board their warships because this would provide important strategic intelligence to possible adversaries, and that the Australian Government is considering the implications of allowing nuclear allies to have nbn-routine access to dry docks. The point has been made that it is normal - Australian practice to remove ammunition before a ship goes into dry dock. There will also be consultations with allies about nuclear weapons in dry dock and each case will be considered at the time. It is hard to see that the position is very different from that before the statement. The Australian Government will hesitate much more before it again refuses dry docking to a British or American warship. It had been, clear, after the Invincible incident, that a request for dry docking would be hard to

refuse twice. Mr Scholes has not done much more than to acknowledge the point publicly. It will be harder, after that statement, for Australia to insist on knowing whether the 852 s that land at Darwin are carrying nuclear weapons. The United States Air Force is likely to insist that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that is, that if the United States Navy does not need to disclose whether its ships are carrying nuclear arms, then the United States Air Force does not need to make such disclosures either. At the moment the position of the 852 s is not clear. This lack of clarity comes about because of an agreement reached by the present leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Andrew Peacock, when he was Foreign Minister. However, if there is still uncertainty in the mind of the Australian Government about whether a dry dock can be described as “Australian soil,” it should not be so difficult to determine whether landing at Darwin constitutes being on Australian soil. The extent to which Mr Scholes’s attempt at clarification annoys various elements within the Australian Labour Party remains to be seen. The Hawke Government has already upset a large number within the party because it is considered to be too pragmatic. The policy of the New Zealand Labour Party is unlikely to be changed by the A.L.P. attitude. The last Labour Party conference in New Zealand formulated a view on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific that seems likely to become part of Labour Party policy. Yet it will be all the harder for the New Zealand Labour Party, should it become the government, to adopt a policy that is not only out of keeping with New Zealand’s major allies, the United States and Britain, but also at odds with an Australian Government led by a Labour Party.

The New Zealand Government had some rebellion on the nuclear-arms issue last year and may have to be less adamant about the nuclear-free zone issue in future. The likely course of events is that in New Zealand and Australia the various political parties, in power or out, will have to fudge the issue to please the United States and Britain on the one hand, and to restrain public concern about nuclear weapons on the other.