The A.N.Z.U.S. debate

Press, 3 November 1984, Page 20

The A.N.Z.U.S. debate

Sir,—l ask the Minister of Defence, Mr O’Flynn, three questions on A.N.Z.U.S. and the moral implications for New Zealand. These are, I believe, questions the answers to which must carry great moral weight. New Zealand’s military involvement in A.N.Z.U.S. implies a political involvement. I do not think this can be contradicted. Therefore, does the A.N.Z.U.S. relationship imply: 1. That the New Zealand Government, speaking for the people of New Zealand, approves or condones the military activities of the United States in Central American countries? 2. That the New Zealand Government is inhibited from expressing on behalf of the people of New Zealand criticism and condemnation of American military actions, for example in Central America? 3. That the New Zealand Government is inhibited from voting in support of resolutions of condemnation of American foreign intervention and invasion, for example resolutions at the United Nations? — Yours, etc., K. FEA. Brookside, October 22, 1984.

[The Minister of Defence, Mr O’Flynn, replies: “Any treaty involves some political commitment between the parties. Of course, this is not open-ended, but limited to the extent and purposes of the treaty. A.N.Z.U.S. is a loose defensive arrangement under which the parties agree to consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened in the Pacific. They further agree to ‘meet (a) common danger in accordance with (their) constitutional processes.’ The treaty is limited to the Pacific. It does not involve the New Zealand Government in any commitment to, or approval of, American foreign policy or military action in Central America or anywhere else. Nor does it prevent the New Zealand Government from expressing criticism of or condemning American actions. The Labour Party has done that several times in recent years, e.g., regarding El Salvador, Grenada and the mining of Nicaraguan harbours. Neither does A.N.Z.U.S. of itself determine New Zealand voting positions on resolutions in the United Nations, including those where American interests are involved. There are many occasions on which New Zealand, the United States and other Western countries share the same approach to issues in the United Nations, but there are also occasions, for example in voting on resolutions on human rights in Central and South America, where New Zealand and the United States have taken opposite positions. In short, the answer to each of your correspondents’ questions is: No.”]