THE PRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1984. The illusions of neutrality

Press, 28 August 1984, Page 12

THE PRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1984. The illusions of neutrality

The New Zealand Party’s Canterbury-Westland division, sensitive to the anti-war and antinuclear mood among some New Zealanders, adopted a policy in favour of “positive neutrality” at a conference in Christchurch at the week-end. Neutrality has an optimistic ring about it. Neutrality suggests the wisdom to rise above the squabbles of others; or it suggests a withdrawal from destructive games played by other people and a decision not to get involved. Neutrality in international affairs is a dream as old as the organisation of humans into separate and competing communities. On occasions it appears to work, but seldom because of the declared intention of those who maintain they are “neutral.” Both World Wars show sad examples of smaller States that declared their neutrality, only to have it violated as soon as to do so suited the convenience of a more powerful neighbour. Their rescue depended on others who were far from neutral. Both wars also offer examples of States that managed to stay aloof from the fighting. Ireland, for instance, sheltered behind Britain. Sweden and Switzerland, also helped by geography, had value to both sides as centres of trade and communication. Had military or political necessity required it, both would have been overrun, regardless of their professions of neutrality. If some future New Zealand Government decided to declare New Zealand’s neutrality in the world, it might be helped by this country’s remoteness from major powers and major points of international conflict. The country might be further helped if it built up its armed forces to the point where something more than a casual assault would be needed to overrun the country. The cost would be very high compared with what New Zealand today spends on defence. Even then, New Zealand could not hope to maintain its neutrality if a larger power — nuclear-armed or not — decided that occupying New Zealand would be in its interests. Reasons for such a move might seem hard to find. They are not. New Zealand could be a profitable source of space, food, and labour. It offers a useful point from which to attempt to capture Australia’s much more valuable resources. For

any effective exploitation of Antarctica, geography makes New Zealand one of the best jumping-off places in the world. The author of the paper delivered to the New Zealand Party appeared to think an answer to arguments such as these could be found in the concept of “positive neutrality.” Mr Quentin Wilson suggested that a neutral New Zealand might become a home for peace studies, a mediation centre for world disputes, a computer-tape repository for the world’s knowledge, and a trusted intermediary between big powers. New Zealand would then seem too valuable to all the rest of the world for anyone to threaten the country. Such a proposal depends on a sweet reasonableness in relations between States that has never, so far, been evident in the world’s history. States in their relations with one another have interests, not morals. A New Zealand that was a storehouse of knowledge, or a society that appeared to have influence in arbitrating the disputes of others, would merely have created two more reasons why it might be an attraction or a nuisance to a more powerful State that insisted on getting its own way. All that would prevent New Zealand falling prey to someone else would be mutual wariness among larger powers. Then, as now, New Zealand would depend for its trade, its sovereignty, and its survival on the readiness of others to come to its defence, or to deter an attack. Neutrality is not something that a country can declare and maintain for itself. Neutrality, like being “nuclear free,” is something that exists only so long as others believe it suits them to have things so arranged. An expensively armed, neutral New Zealand might have some, prospect of survival, although it could end up isolated from essential trade and from international events where it wanted its voice heard. Even then, it would still depend on some larger, probably nuclear-armed power for its ultimate survival. A neutral and unarmed New Zealand could be an international provocation, a relatively rich community in a relatively poor world. It would be seen as being ripe for plucking, and few tears would be shed elsewhere if it suffered the fate that it invited.