U.S. studying N;Z. stance on nuclear deterrence

Press, 18 March 1988, Page 6

U.S. studying N;Z. stance on nuclear deterrence

By

TOM BRIDGMAN

NZPA correspondent [ Washington The United States has been keenly watching New' Zealand's toing-apd-froing over the theory of nuclear deterrence but is holding off \any judgment on whether the Labour Government is changing its position.

initially the speech in Geneva by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr Marshall, was seen by officials in Washington as a "modification” of how New Zealand policy had been presented before.

Mr Marshall said there on March 3 that collective security arrangements had helped keep the world free from conflict during the last 40 years and that' "nuclear deter-

rence has played and continues ito [ play an important role in those security arrangements and the maintenance! of peace at the global level." That was; said one Washington official, better from [the United States point of view than the argument put forward by the New Zealand ambassador. Mr Graham Fortune, to (he Disarmament Conference in Geneva in July. 1987. because it admitted some basic realities.

Mr Fortune had criticised the theory of deterrence in [Europe and called for greater emphasis on regional and conventional. security cooperation. I "New Zealand does not accept that Western security [must be indivisi-

bly reliant on nuclear weapons. We believe [that alternatives to nuclear deterrence do exist,"[ he said. ; Those comments had at the time aroused concern in Washington where some; perceived ! the speec[h to indicate [New Zealand might be considering the export of its anti-nuclear policy, .contrary to earlier Government assurances. I After Mr Marshall’s speech and its resulting publicity, New Zealand officials’ were arguing that the Foreign Minister was only [restating New [Zealand's known position-, and that if anything it was the Fortune speech which was the "aberration." ,

However, earlier [ this week Ithe Prime Minister. Mr Lange, said New [Zealand did "not subscribe to the validity of the nuclear deterrence theory and we

do not support it." Mr Marshall backed him, saying he did not believe nuclear weaponry had ever been needed to keep peace in the world.

United States officials are now trying to determine where the ball has landed.

"We are not going to take any i comfort from the (Marshall) speech until it is all sorted out," said one. .

From the United States point of view, the Marshall speech might be seen to be taking New Zealand in what the United States considers the right direction. But it was emphasised that it did not mean “by any stretch of the imagination” that New Zealand had adopted a stance on nuclear deterrence identical to that of the United States, Britain, and other members of the Western alliance.