Pim Opinion

Whatever the final outcome of the delicate manoeuvring between New Zealand and America over the ANZUS treaty, and there is some reason to think that Mr Lange may be temporising his stand slightly, the entire crisis points up the changes which have occurred in outlook between New Zealand and Australia.

The spirit of ANZAC was forged on the ghastly slopes of Gallipoli during the First World War, and tempered through such places of desperate combat as the Pacific theatre of the Second World War, Malaya, Korea, Malaysia and, finally, Vietnam. In each place the assumption was pretty well automatic that where Australia went, New Zealand went, too. That was as it had been since the days of the first settlers; since the rough-riders of the Boer War, and onwards through the decades.

For, while there might have been family rivalries, and perhaps, growing, a feeling by New Zealanders that Australians were getting a bit big for their boots, and by Australians that their Tasman neighbors were a shade too prickly, both communities shared an Anglo-Saxon heritage, a similar outlook and background, and common interests. Indeed, so far as the Pacific Islands are concerned, New Zealand in some respects showed greater responsibility and did a better job by those for whom it held duty, than did Australia. New Zealand looked outward in its neighbor hood.

In the wake of the Second World War, while Asia churned and rumbled, ANZUS was formed; an alliance, essentially, of two small powers sheltered by the umbrella of their giant, and culturally similar, friend, the United States. It was in effect recognition that ’’mother” Britain not only no longer had an empire, but had other fish to fry, not in the Pacific. ANZUS has lasted 30 years and, technically, cannot be tom asunder, for there is no machinery by which a member may opt out. This latter point is, of course, not really substantial, for if the Americans are sufficiently miffed by Mr Lange’s ban upon their nuclear ships (always assuming Mr Lange remains as adamant as he has sounded through the various talks so far), then ANZUS must cease to have much validity whether it exists on paper or not. The point has not been reached (and Australian politics might be quite interesting if it were), when a bilateral treaty, in effect superceding ANZUS, can be firmly proposed.

Whatever the ultimate wisdom of the New Zealand policy on

nuclear forces, (and it must be said that it has a quite large degree of support among the trendy left in Australia, too), it has shown clearly the gap that has grown, between these two very similar peoples.

Australia now has no option but to be a member of the western nuclear alliance. Her size, her minerals, her place in the region, her world-wide interests, demand it. Where once it was part of an empire governed on the far side of the world, it is now a small-medium power, with a major position in the Pacific, possessing massive supplies of raw materials, including a significant share of the world’s uranium, which, in the perhaps not too distant future, may become of vital necessity to all sorts of nations.

In short, Australia is a ’’target” whether she likes it or not. Many of her leaders and people may like the nuclear aspects of modern-day defence systems no better than Mr Lange or the left-wing of his party which so vociferously demands of him adherence to the ships ban. And, as Australian Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden, has made clear, they are not about to ’’heavy” the New Zealanders on behalf of ANZUS. But Australia cannot now escape involvement in the hard stuff of world affairs. The same urgency does not intrude upon New Zealand’s thoughts. If one sits amidst the beautiful serenity and greenness of the New Zealand countryside, gazing upon the stately alps, or strolling through their pretty towns, it is more than possible to understand this point of view.

At the same time, as Mr Lange has made clear, they need a defence system. They have proposed that they can remain full members of ANZUS without having to become involved with nuclear weapons, or nuclear power. They want the benefits. They don’t want the warts.

But in today’s world, is such an attitude possible? Can a nation be seen to be imposing so upon the goodwill of a bigger friend?

More importantly for the balance of power in our Ocean, will the Americans put up with it?

The New Zealand ban has altered that balance, at a time when the Soviet Union is rapidly building the strength of its naval forces in the Pacific, because it is seen as limiting the movement and facilities of the Americans. Therefore, far from improving the security of our neighborhood, the ban has tended to upset it.