N.Z., France seek agreement on arbitration issues

Press, 17 June 1986, Page 3

N.Z., France seek agreement on arbitration issues

By PATRICIA HERBERT in Wellington ; New Zealand and France, having found a mutually acceptable t arbiter for the Rainbow Warrior case, are now trying to strike agreement on the issues to go to arbitration. The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, confirmed yesterday that a person had, not only been nominated but approached although had yet to make a commitment either way. He declined to identify the person. It is known that the former Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Trudeau, is no longer being considered. He was mentioned as a possibility earlier this year but turned down the offer.

It was believed that the nominee is not from Europe, which rules out the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr Lubbers, although he has been active in persuading France and New Zealand to call in the services of a third party. Mr Lange indicated yesterday that the European Community nations would prefer not to take sides in the dispute.

He said he had ; been “intrigued” on his tour of the European capitals at the depth of interest in reaching a settlement and attributed this to fears that a long stand-off may divide the Community. He said the expansion of European Community membership to include 12 countries had created the prospect that split decisions would “start to become the vogue” and that the wish was to maintain the tradition of consensus decision-making. “There seemed a desire to see the issue resolved so that it would not become a matter of France against New Zealand with the other members of the Community being forced into declaring by majority vote their support for New Zealand,” he said. He conceded he was only speculating that this was the source of concern but said he felt the speculation warranted after the round of talks he had undertaken. Both the New Zealand and the French Governments have demonstrated a willingness to pursue arbitration as an. option and are engaged now on defining its possible scope. The Cabinet policy committee met yesterday afternoon to discuss general terms of reference and ' will communicate these to France for its response. . The idea is that the arbiter will be given power to deliver a predetermined verdict but only on a pre-determined range of issues so that neither France nor New Zealand is required to surrender whatWvfr Lange

described as their “essential sovereignty.” Before New Zealand will negotiate an agreed brief, however, it will demand that France remove any remaining trade sanctions. At different times, these have frustrated exports of canned kiwifruit, wool and seed potatoes but the only embargo still in force applies to lambs’ brains. Mr Lange said yesterday this would have to be lifted before there could be any progress toward an accommodation. He also affirmed that any agreement would exclude the release to freedom of the two French agents imprisoned in New Zealand. But he indicated they may be transferred to detention elsewhere sooner rather than later. In April he said they would first have to serve “a substantial part” of their sentence in New Zealand before a repatriation to custody could be considered and that there was “not a dog’s show” of this happening before the French presidential elections next year. It appeared from his comments yesterday, however, that there may have been some change in this position. Asked if his earlier assurances that they would not be transferred out of New Zealand while the present New Zealand Government held office still stood, he said he had never said that Rather, he had "talked constantly about the prospect of (the two prisoners) serving the term in another place.” Another possible shift in New Zealand’s stance concerns the other suspects still wanted for the bombing and now sheltering in France. A draft copy of the address Mr Lange gave in Cologne on May 29 to the Sixth World Congress of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, obtained by Television New Zealand, shows that he had intended to refer to the extradition of those still wanted for arrest but this reference was later dropped. Mr Lange said he had changed the speech on advice; because there was hope of “some movement” toward a resolution so he had “decided not to stir.” He also said that if France suggested that New Zealand denounce all legal rights or claims against the rest of the sabotage team, he would look at it He added, however, that his “instinctive reaction” was that such a concession would be “inappropriate.”

Mr Lange said because the terms of arbitration had to be agreed with France, it would be "some days” before he would be able to make an announcement on them "one way or the other.” He emphasised that if agreement in this area proved impossible, the whole initiative may collapse.

From his comments, it seems that New Zealand is adopting a conciliatory attitude and that the terms it is drawing up are close to its bottom line. This means that, should they prove unacceptable to France, there will be little room for further negotiation and that the attempt at an arbitrated solution will have to be dropped.

“It the matter terminates there, it will be because we cannot surrender more. We will have made an honest effort and that is it,” Mr Lange said yesterday.