N.Z.’s nuclear policy debated

Press, 12 March 1985, Page 8

N.Z.’s nuclear policy debated

The United States allows the Soviet Union to have information on its nuclear weapons while denying such information to New Zealand, according to the peace campaigner, Mr Owen Wilkes. Under the provisions of the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (S.A.L.T. II) the two super-Powers had agreed not to use covers or other devices which could hide nuclear weapons from spy satellites, he said last evening.

Under the agreement American 852 planes were modified if they carried nuclear weapons, to distinguish them from those not carrying them, he “By international tAaty

they make this information available to the Russians at the same time as denying it to us.” Mr Wilkes was debating New Zealand’s role in nuclear disarmament with the Opposition spokesman on disarmament, Mr Doug Graham, at Lincoln College. Keeping America’s nuclear capabilities secret from the Soviet Union was not the reason for the United States Government’s policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on ships visiting New Zealand ports. The real reason for this policy was that such weapons were a “difficult internal issue” for countries such as New Zealand, said Mr Wilkes.

He said that the United States needed New Zealand’s friendship and there was no reason why New Zealand could not “stand up to it” as other countries had. Both Norway and Denmark were N.A.T.O. members, but would not allow permanent foreign bases. France had withdrawn from the military arm of N.A.T.O. but was still in the political arm, and Thailand had thrown out all American bases but was still in the Manila Pact, he said. Indonesia had no American bases or personnel on its territory, yet it got far more American aid than the Philippines which had many such bases. “I think that’s because they (Indonesia) drove a

harder bargain.” Mr Graham said that New Zealand had a sovereign right to refuse nuclear weapons in its territory, but the United States also had a sovereign right to say “no” to New Zealand trade. He said it was necessary to be responsible about how disarmament took place. New Zealand should not do anything which could destabilise its defensive system, he said. The Government’s policy would not reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the Pacific. It could even increase the number, because of the destabilising effect the policy could have. If it chose to “drop out” from its connections wjth America because of disen-

chantment with the lack of progress on disarmament New Zealand would become “isolationist.” Its historic influence on Britain and the United States would become “pretty much non-existent,” he said. By remaining in alliance with the United States New Zealand could use some of this established influence to try to encourage disarmament. The Government’s attitude was “misguided” and lacked credibility when it refused entry to nuclearpowered ships while allowing military exercises only 12 miles off the coast. It was also contradictory when the Government did not make a moral stand against conventional arms, said Mr Graham.