Compatibility the key, says Aust. defence expert

Press, 25 July 1986, Page 4

Compatibility the key, says Aust. defence expert

PA Wellington The Australian defence planner, Mr Paul Dibb, believes New Zealand can pull its weight in its alliance with Australia if it maintains compatible equipment. Mr Dibb, who recently completed a report on Australia’s defence capability, is in Wellington for talks with politicians, officials and the Defence Committee of Inquiry. Asked if, with the dissolution of A.N.Z.U.S. New Zealand could pull its weight in an alliance with Australia, he said:

“If you continue with things like having P 3 Orions that are compatible with our own P 3 Orions, and surface ships that are compatible with our own capabilities ... clearly there is an element not only of compatibility but of inter-opera-bility.” Mr Dibb also mentioned the R.N.Z.A.F.’s Skyhawks as another area of compatibility. He emphasised an earlier comment that the light patrol frigates he is suggesting as replacement ships for Australia’s destroyer escorts were frigates and not corvettes. All three New Zealand weapons systems mentioned by Mr Dibb were targets of the anti-nuclear and anti-A.N.Z.U.S. groups during the recent Defence Committee of Inquiry.

It was argued that Orions were too sophisticated, the Skyhawks unnecessary and the frigates too large. It was urged the frigates be replaced with corvettes.

Mr Dibb acknowledged that the break up of Anzus was going to cost Australia more, money because of the need to have separate military exercises with New Zealand and the United States.

Australia, he said, spent about sAust62 million on exercises a year. Of that, half was spent on exercises with the United States and about sAustl2 million on exercises with New Zealand. Mr Dibb was referred to an earlier article he wrote in which he described the United StatesNew Zealand argument over nuclear-armed ships as “one of the most hopeful developments for the U.S.S.R. in the region.”

He was asked if the two bilateral defence arrangements that had replaced A.N.Z.U.S. (AustraliaUnited States and New Zealand-Australia) were sufficent to deter the U.S.S.R. from taking advantage of the dissolution of A.N.Z.U.S. He replied: “From a Soviet perspective they perhaps saw certain opportunities. "Of course their activities with regard to fishing

agreements are a demonstration that the Soviets, even in the South Pacific which in the past they have not paid much attention to, see some opportunities.” Mr Dibb also emphasised that any opportunities the U.S.S.R. saw in the region were not simply the result of the argument between the United States and New Zealand; other factors, such as the activities of United States tuna fishermen, also played a part. Mr Dibb spoke of other areas in which the U.S.S.R. had made fishing agreements.

“We have seen how fishing agreements in the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean can lead to unwelcome Soviet activities,” he said.

The South West Pacific had been a quiet area in the past but the process of decolonisation had yet to be completed. From the Australian point of view, the increasing attention the region was receiving from outside Powers, such as the U.S.S.R. , was unwelcome. Mr Dibb said he found it hard to imagine a decrease in the defence cooperation between Australia and New Zealand. He did not see the two countries becoming rivals for influence in the South West Pacific.