Treaty ‘misunderstood’

Press, 12 October 1985, Page 8

Treaty ‘misunderstood’

The statement by a group of retired military officers on A.N.Z.U.S. is founded on serious misunderstandings of the treaty, says a lecturer in international law, Mr Rupert Glover. He rejected the officers’ assertions that any review of the treaty would result in New Zealand’s total exclusion.

Even if one party withdrew from A.N.Z.U.S. its S visions could persit indetely, said Mr Glover, who lectures at the University of Canterbury. Little chance existed of New Zealand’s present stance being contrary to

rules of international law which could end permanent treaties. Only if New Zealand defected from the Western alliance could a breach of one of these rules be considered to have occurred, he said. li would be hard for the United Stated, to contemplate total withdrawal because of this region’s strategic and non-military importance, said Mr Glover. Although New Zealand wished to ban nuclear weapons, duties under the treaty could still be performed and the anti-nuclear

stance was not a breach of another of the rules of international law. The final rule, relating to a fundamental change in circumstances, had not been broken by New Zealand’s stance. Peace in the Pacific was one of the cornerstones of the treaty and New Zealand had asserted that the presence of nuclear weapons threatened that, said Mr Glover. “New Zealand has no duty under international law to support or contribute to the American strategy of global nuclear deterrence,” he said.