THE PRESS SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1986. Australia-N.Z. defence

Press, 13 December 1986, Page 24

THE PRESS SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1986. Australia-N.Z. defence

The points made by the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, about defence co-operation between New Zealand and Australia are not new. Much of what he said when he arrived was a repetition of what was said in San Francisco at the last meeting between Mr Hayden and the American Secretary of State, Mr Shultz. Australia is opposed to the New Zealand view on the ban on nuclear ships and understands the actions of the United States. At the same time, Australia considers that it has an important bilateral relationship with New Zealand. Mr Hayden spelt out the importance of the relationship a little more than usual, arguing that it was vital for Australia’s security that New Zealand was in the hands of a friendly government. The 1983 New Zealand defence review described New Zealand and Australia as forming one strategic entity. Mr Hayden did not use those terms, but assumed that New Zealand and Australia would think of themselves together.

Mr Hayden was at pains not to step into domestic political arguments in New Zealand. He warned, however, that Australia could not be a substitute for the United States in a defence relationship. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Lange, said that New Zealand would not think of Australia as a substitute, and added that in any case the

United States did not guarantee New Zealand defence under the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance. That interpretation of the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty is not quite as plain as Mr Lange would sometimes like to make it. The politics of the argument were that the United States withdrew its security commitment to New Zealand and the New Zealand Government took the view that the security commitment had not really existed under A.N.Z.U.S. in any case. The Nev; Zealand Government said that it would move closer to Australia over defence. This was one of the issues which Mr Hayden was addressing. He gave a timely reminder that because Australia held defence exercises with New Zealand as well as with the United States, it cost Australia more money. He did not suggest that because of cost Australia would cut out the exercises. He did, however, make it fairly clear that Australia would await overtures from New Zealand on closer defence co-operation. The New Zealand Government, for its part, has to make clear in concrete terms what it means by wanting a closer defence relationship with Australia. The defence reviews in New Zealand and Australia, both of which are likely to appear early next year, may spell out the relationship more clearly. Although his comments were not new, Mr Hayden has given sharper focus to the discussion.