U.S. would sever treaty bonds with N.Z.

Press, 5 December 1985, Page 8

U.S. would sever treaty bonds with N.Z.

By PATRICIA HERBERT in Wellington

A.N.Z.U.S. would probably not be dismantled but the American-New Zealand commitment removed from it if the Government’s antinuclear bill was passed, said a top American official yesterday. Dr Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, gave that as the preferred American reaction.

He was speaking in an hour-long satellite interview, organised by the United States Information Agency, with journalists in Perth, Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, and Wellington, on regional security issues as they affected the United States-Australian relationship. The dispute over New Zealand’s ports policy dominated the agenda. The Australians were concerned about what it would mean for A.N.Z.U.S. and how that would affect them.

Their questions showed an impatience with New Zealand’s stance and a toughness of attitude that Dr Wolfowitz indicated was duplicated by the Australian Government. He said that from what he had heard it might be more vulnerable to accusations of bullying New Zealand than was Washington. Dr Wolfowitz assured them that the United States was determined to continue defence co-operation with Australia “whatever happens.” The American Administration, and probably the Congress, regarded A.N.Z.U.S. as the “ideal vehicle” for maintaining those commitments. The United States Government intended to maintain a close security alliance with Australia in A.N.Z.U.S. and end any formal obligations to New Zealand, he said. He defined the “first task” Of Washington’s threatened review of the obligations as assessing

whether these two objectives could be achieved at the same time.

“It is important that New Zealanders understand that, if this is the course they want to follow, these will be the consequences,” he said. The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, apparently got wind on Monday that the Americans were thinking of remaining in A.N.Z.U.S. but refusing to honour their duties to New Zealand under it.

He said that might be a matter for litigation because in some countries it was an issue of constitutional principle that Governments could not discard the responsibilities of a treaty to which they were signatories. Dr Wolfowitz was not questioned on that point yesterday. But a United States Embassy spokesman had said that A.N.Z.U.S. was a private arrangement between the three partners and had no other international standing.

Another of Mr Lange’s remarks — that the United States’ refusal of a briefing on the draft bill meant that the spirit of Geneva applied only to the Soviet Union and not to New Zealand — was dismissed by Dr Wolfowitz as nonsense.

“We are happy to talk to New Zealand at any time about a solution but to us this is not a solution — it is an obstacle to a solution,” he said.

He repeated earlier assurances that the row would not result in trade sanctions but said New Zealand had already lost some of the “economic clout” it once held in Washington. That would make a difference, he said, because there were benefits attached to being an ally. New Zealand had enjoyed these to a degree available to few countries of its size, he said. Mr Lange chose not to comment on the interview. A spokesman for his office said that Dr Wolfowitz had said nothing new.