THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 1989. Mr Palmer and the U.S.

Press, 14 August 1989, Page 20

THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 1989. Mr Palmer and the U.S.

“Our nuclear policy will not be changing,” the Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, said on the day that he was elected to office. Few New Zealanders will be surprised. Probably the United States will not be surprised either, although, in an initial reaction, it felt compelled to express the vain hope that the new leaders of the Labour Party would reconsider New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stand. The change in leadership of the Labour Government removes Mr Lange from the scene even if the anti-nuclear policy remains. Although the measures taken by the United States against New Zealand were couched in terms of being a response to the policy, the Lange factor still played a large part. Mr Lange was leader of the Government ■. that refused access to the U.S.S. Buchanan in February, 1985, and the anti-nuclear legislation was enacted during his time as Prime Minister. At least as important was the feeling that Mr Lange had deceived particular people, or at least had failed to live up to understandings that the United States thought that it had with him. Some members of the Reagan Administration felt personally antagonistic towards Mr Lange. The response of the United States to the ban on nuclear ships involved several measures. The United States cut off most defence intelligence to New Zealand; it withdrew the security guarantee under A.N.Z.U.S.; it stopped giving New Zealand priority in purchases of military equipment; it stopped military exercises with New Zealand; and, least logically, it denied New Zealand officials and politicians access to senior levels of the American Administration on diplomatic and security matters. The policy of refusing to see New Zealand politicians and senior public servants at high levels is surely an indefensible part of the response. The United States has been inconsistent in the policy because it has received some senior members of the National Party. The continuation of this policy is bound to cause resentment among New Zealanders, who not only see members of the Opposition being received and Government members being pointedly ignored, but also the heads of Government of countries whose values are a world apart from those of the United States and New Zealand being received. A continuation of that policy must fuel such bad feeling against the United States as is present in New Zealand.

The main argument advanced by the United States has been that it could not afford to let New Zealand get away with its anti-nuclear policy because the policy would set a precedent for other countries of far greater importance to the United States. That judgment is hard to prove or disprove. Since the decision to deny access to the U.S.S.

Buchanan, in February, 1985, no other country has followed New Zealand’s example. Denmark flirted with the idea but abandoned it.

The Philippines may seek to get rid of American bases and the anti-nuclear Japan Socialist Party stands a chance of winning power this year. However, it is at least arguable that the internal political dynamics of those countries, rather than the action New Zealand took in 1985, are likely to drive policy.

From time to time the United States shows some sign of being aware of its own inconsistency and of being prepared to change its policy of refusing access to senior New Zealand Government politicians. Mr Lange did not help matters by his Yale speech, which although it contained some good sentiments about the United States, came across as portraying A.N.Z.U.S. as being dead. Those in the United States who favoured abandonment of the “not playing speaks” policy must have found their arguments undermined by that speech.

Mr Palmer’s accession to the leadership of the Government gives the United States a chance to abandon the policy without seeming to lose face. While he was in power Mr Lange sometimes seemed deliberately to expose himself to attack to draw attention away from another aspect of domestic policy. In this way he demonstrated the attributes of a good leader, being able to take the rap. No longer in power, Mr Lange could once more demonstrate that he has broad shoulders and let the Americans blame him for the breakdown in communication. If the United States wants to be seen in New Zealand as not being vindictive it should receive Mr Palmer and his associates.

For its part the Palmer Government should continue the Lange Government’s policy of not exporting the anti-nuclear policy, and all New Zealand Ministers should refrain from feeding any anti-American sentiment in New Zealand. There may be temptations on both points as next year’s election draws closer. Mr Palmer should assure the United States on both those points. He is a man capable of saying what he means clearly and with precision and should expect similar discipline from his Cabinet on the issue.

To do this would not show any subservience, but would show that the New Zealand Government can say what it thinks and is as good as its word. If such a gesture fails, as far as the development of better relations with the United State goes, then it will have still been an honourable gesture to have made. A future United States Administration might see that.