The way ahead internationally

Press, 28 July 1986, Page 24

The way ahead internationally

By J

STUART McMILLAN

There is not much point in waiting with bated breath to see what the United States is going to say when it makes the promised definitive statement about the future of A.N.Z.U.S. on August 10. The United States has been saying for some time that it plans to review its security commitment to New Zealand. The formal shell of A.N.Z.U.S. will

stay in place; the United States will not consider itself bound by its provisions. The question is: where does New Zealand go from here? The

accompanying question is: where does New Zealand belong? Several options present themselves, all with striking political implications domestically and important implications for New Zealand’s international links. The options are:

© That New Zealand will move closer to Australia; © That New Zealand will move close to Europe; ® That New Zealand will adopt a non-aligned or neutral stance; © That New Zealand will become isolationist;

® That full port access for the warships of the United States and other Western countries will be reinstated under a nelther-con-firm-nor-deny policy over weaponry.

Under the present Government the fifth option, that of admitting ships that might be nuclear armed, can be ruled out. The official policy of the National Party is to restore full port access, but this policy is itself one of the numerous sources of tension within the National Party.

The fourth option, of. becoming isolationist, is not something which would be formally adopted as such but be a position New Zealand found itself in if it took

or followed certain courses of behaviour. If the Government, for instance, began direct appeals to the public of other countries over the nuclear issue, directly attempting to influence public attitudes against their own Governments, the country would soon find itself isolated.

Explaining the position of the New Zealand Government is completely acceptable; attempting to arouse public feeling in foreign countries so that it is at odds with the Governments of those countries would not be

considered acceptable. New Zealand would become isolated.

Similarly, adopting a policy of supporting non-Government

people to do the same thing would also see the country isolated, regarded as a regional and international nuisance. The fact that people from New Zealand talk or campaign in other countries is part of the Western way of life. The difficulties would come if the Government were formally supporting those campaigners.

The Government has not so far adopted such a policy and shows no signs of doing so. Traditionally, New Zealand has never been an isolationist country.

The second option, of moving closer to Europe, seems improbable under most circumstances. It would go against the greater concentration on the region which has been the thrust of recent policy. Besides, the trade returns would not be greatly

Improved. It would seem to be an option only if the Government judged the country to be becoming isolated. This could happen not only by any action of the New Zealand Government but also by actions taken by the United States Government.

The only two likely options are

the non-alignment/neutrality one or a move closer to Australia. Because of the uncertainty associated with the future of A.N.Z.U.S. and the whole relationship with the United States, a

gap may be perceived and the arguments for non-alignment gather momentum. The Labour Party conference, which will take place in Wellington from August 29 to September 1, is likely to be the place at which a number of the ideas about New Zealand’s future direction internationally will be

aired. The Government is likely to come under pressure from the delegates, as it usually does, but this time with renewed force.

The Government’s position has been that New Zealand could have the ban on nuclear ships and also have A.N.Z.U.S. Labour Party conferences have frequently called for a withdrawal from A.N.Z.U.S. The party organisation has already made the point that the Government has

not been successful in maintaining both the ban on nuclear ships and A.N.Z.U.S. The party is likely to say that the next logical step is to get out of A.N.Z.U.S. and declare New Zealand to be nonaligned.

Non-alignment or neutrality is not carefully defined in the heat

of party debate. In international politics, being non-aligned fre-

quently means belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, which groups many African and Asian countries. Membbers of the NonAligned Movement often vote as a bloc in the United Nations.

Some countries in the NonAligned Movement, ’ notably Malaysia, want to see the Antarctic Treaty brought to an end and such riches as Antarctica has to be shared among mankind. One of New Zealand’s principal foreign policy aims in maintaining its own security has been to avoid the possibiity of conflict in Antarctica. Some non-aligned positons would be viewed by New Zealand as directly contrary to their own interests.

In any event, New Zealand would be profoundly uneasy in that grouping and many nations in that grouping would be uneasy about having New Zealand there. When Mr Brian Taiboys, then the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs, was explaining New Zealand’s position in foreign affairs to a group of Iraqi foreign service officers in 1972, a voice from the floor made the immortal remark, “You don’t look nonaligned to me.” Most New Zealanders who argue for non-alignment as an option for New Zealand, do not mean membership of the NonAligned Movement. They usually cite the neutrality and international activities of Switzerland and Sweden as models for New Zealand.

Such proposals have a strong idealistic and intellectual appeal. My own view is that these depend on a base of being accepted and acknowledged in the international community and having the backing of friends. I doubt whether a country in such an isolated position as New Zealand and with such limited resources would be physically able to pursue any of these aims on any large scale. The aims are good and the world would be a better

and safer place if more countries had such aims. That is different from regarding them as a substitute for the development and maintenance of close relationships with other countries. The domestic crunch for the Government will be to Consider whether the policies of nonalignment, even in the form envisaged by its New Zealand advocates, would be a saleable proposition for the Government at the next election.

Internationally too, the Government might be in some difficulties because the world would be just getting used to the fact that New Zealand was not being aligned to the United States as everyone thought it was and then have to. come to terms with New Zealand being non-aligned but somehow not non-aligned in the sense that is usually meant by being non-aligned.

The domestic dilemma would be vital. If New Zealand were taken into a shadowy world of some form of non-alignment, the Government would stand a good chance of losing the next election.

The Labour Party conference will, as Labour Party conferences long have, vote for a withdrawl from A.N.Z.U.S. It may vote for some remit seeking to make New Zealand nonaligned.

The conference does not make the policy, which is the prerogative of the policy council. The Government should be able to command the votes in the policy council both to prevent any formal move to withdraw from A.N.Z.U.S. and to push the country towards non-alignment. The results of the opinion poll conducted by the Defence Inquiry Committee have not yet been announced. Earlier opinion polls have shown that New Zealanders want A.N.Z.U.S. retained. It would be surprising if the opinion poll conduccted for

the committee led by Mr Frank Corner showed something different If its results are as expected, the Government will have a powerful argument on its side against the . party organisation. A fundamental function of the State is to ensure the security of the citizens. If the citizens feel safer inside an even ailing alliance, then that is what the Government will give them. The Government’s preferred option is to move closer to Australia in defence matters, in foreign policy initiatives,' and in trade. The invitation to the Australian defence analyst, Paul Dibb, the writer of a significant report on Australia’s defence . needs, to come to New Zealand would seem to be a clear signal of the Government’s intentions. Both the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, and the Minister of Defence, Mr O’Flynn, have repeated the idea of New Zealand and Australia forming one strategic entity. These are important indicators of the Government’s ' thinking. Besides, the Government is concentrating its diplomatic and defence efforts on the region and needs to work with Australia to achieve mutual regional aims. What the Government wants is clear. What It will have to do to obtain it remains to be seen. There may have to be an obvious move towards Australia. This Government has caused difficulties for the Australian Government and upset traditional understandings between the Australian and New Zealand Governments. The previous New Zealand Government mounted a strong initiative towards the Australian Government in the late 19705. The present Government may have to make some tangible moves to woo the Australian Government again. One of the Intriguing questions about , the Labour Party is what Mr Lange may have to do to get his way over A.N.Z.U.S. and over enhancing the relationship with Australia. He has got a powerful weapon: himself. Labour seems likely to retain power though with a smaller majority at the next election. Without David Lange, Labour might not retain power.

It will be interesting to see how far Mr Lange will have to go to make sure the Government is not forced on to the road of formal non-alignment, which he considers an inappropriate way for New Zealand internationally and a disastrous way for the Labour Party electorally.