N.Z. ‘happy with’ A.N.Z.U.S. decisions

Press, 13 May 1987, Page 38

N.Z. ‘happy with’ A.N.Z.U.S. decisions

By

TOM BRIDGMAN

NZPA Washington New Zealand officials were generally happy with just being told what the United States had decided at meetings of the now defunct A.N.Z.U.S. Council, according to an official document.

The previously classified June, 1981, review of the workings of A.N.Z.U.S. at the beginning of the decade by the General Accounting Office said that while meetings of the A.N.Z.U.S. Council were designed to develop unified action and policy, "they often result in explanations or unilaterally

determined foreign policies.”

“For example, we were told these meetings usually act as a platform for the United States to announce predetermined courses of action. “Furthermore, the' primary outcome of the meeting is a reaffirmation of the member’s commitment to the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance. “New Zealand officials were generally satisfied with this method of,‘consultation’ since they view the United States as a ‘super-Power, acting as a super-Power must’,” said the review.

“Australian officials were less than satisfied with the current ‘consultations’ or notifications since policies, which often have an impact on their country, were made with minimal Australian input,” it said. The review, a report to Senator John Glenn entitled “United States Security Consultations and Joint Defence Planning with East Asian and Western Pacific Allies,” vtas declassified in February this year and obtained by the Nautilus Foundation peace group under the freedom of' information law. '

Peter Hayes, the Australian activist who runs Nautilus, released the report to the media. The last meeting of the tripartite A.N.Z.U.S. Council, where foreign and defence political leaders and officials from the United States, Australia and New Zealand met to discuss alliance developments, took place in Wellington in July, 1984, soon after the election but before the Labour Government took office.

Since then, as a result of the Government’s antinuclear policies, Australia and the United States have held bilateral meetings, the last at San Francisco in August where the United States withdrew its security guarantees under A.N.Z.U.S. to New Zealand, the formal end to what had since mid-1984 become a non-opqrational tripartite alliance.

The G.A.O. review studies how A.N.Z.U.S. worked in the wake of the late 1979 Soviet invasioh of Afghanistan which resulted in the 1980 A.N.Z.U.S. Council meeting being advanced from August to February and the location changed from Wellington to Washington. It said that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand were neither consulted nor advised of the United States decision to deploy forces to the Indian Ocean following the Soviet move, “until after the action had been taken.”

Since 1976 the spirit of the A.N.Z.U.S. treaty had been regarded by Australia at least as conferring obligations on all parties to include the Indian Ocean.

However, in 1980, when then New Zealand Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, was questioned about stepped-up activities in the Indian Ocean, he said there was no reference to the Indian Ocean

in the treaty and that limited co-operation with Australia and the United States there at the time was not under A.N.Z.U.S. auspices. New Zealand and Australia officials told the review that “they had expected some input, notification or consultation prior to the action” and that the United States did not seek their support of the Indian Ocean deployment until the A.N.Z.U.S. council meeting in late February, 1980.

“We were informed that both countries learned of the deployment through the local news media,” it said.

The G.A.O. review said the Australian and New Zealand Governments were generally pleased with the American decision to deploy forces into the Indian Ocean, even if they were, not consulted in advance.

“However, New Zealand officials recognised the speed and’ secrecy involved in such an effort, and the Australian officials informed us that they had expected some co-ordination or consultation at the State Foreign Ministry level,” it said. . New Zealand’s junior role in the military meetings that' followed the political council meeting comes out in the G.A.O. report

“Australian and Neiw Zealand officials Complained that they have minimal input in the American military, deci-sion-making process. On the other hand, they also expressed disinclination to be involved on some sensitive Issues.

“Moreover, New Zealand officials do not believe increased input is needed since the United States is a ‘super-Power’ with worldwide commitments. “Unscheduled, ad hoc meetings between senior officials and visits by Cabinet-level American officials were viewed as the most meaningful consultations since participants are able to freely exchange views and opinions,” it said. In 1983, after the election of the Labour Government in Australia, the first important review of A.N.Z.U.S. since it was signed in 1951 took place. At that there was agreement to strengthen the A.N.Z.U.S. consultative arrangements through periodic officials* talks which would rotate between the three capitals and look at areas of common concern.