moral high ground

Pim Opinion

US losing the moral high ground

Once again, the Russians have upped the ante in the diplomatic poker game with the Americans. The pot is commercial and political influence in the South Pacific.

The Soviet announcement that Mr Gorbachev would support the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone concept came just after the US and the forum island countries failed to reach agreement on a fisheries access deal.

The Soviet leader also appeared to have occupied the moral high ground by announcing that he intended to start talks on limiting the movements of nuclear weapons within the region.

Meanwhile, instead of attempting the near-impossible multilateral fisheries treaty, the Russians have opted for bilateral agreements which are easier to establish.

It’s a Russian victory in a wider war for the hearts and minds of the people of the region. At the same time, however, Mr Gorbachev’s statement (page 6) deserves ■close examination. He does not, for example, specify who he is going to talk to about restricting nuclear weapons in the region. Nor when.lf he really wanted to be taken seriously, Mr Gorbachev might have committed the Soviet Union to the protocols of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty which would require the Soviet Union not to manufacture, station or test nuclear devices in the region: not to use or threaten the use of nuclear weaponry against signatories to the treaty; not to test nuclear armaments in the region.

For the Soviets, it’s not too much to ask. They have nothing to lose. Also, they lack the restriction placed on the US administration by democratic controls, which, ironically, mitigate against the treaty. The US Congress delegation which toured the region early this year (PIM, July P 23) was of the view that the treaty would only encourage people to distrust the nuclear deterrent.

It’s a view that has torpedoed US relations with the

island nations for some time past. And without an educational effort in Washington by those who know better, it’s a view that will continue to sour any US efforts in the region.

As things stand, the US is sidelined without a fishing agreement, while the Soviet Union continues to gather friends and influence. The Russian attitude to the nuclear issue is also in contrast to the US stance, which pushes Washington further into the cold.

But the US effort has not been botched beyond repair.

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s possible to say that the multilateral tuna effort on which so many hopes were placed was over ambitious. Through the Forum Fisheries Agency, there were those attending the talks who had little interest in distant-water fishing fleets. This has led, inevitably, to other issues being dragged into an arena already crowded with claims and counter claims.

Again, with hindsight, it’s possible to speculate that the US might have been better advised to deal only with those countries which signed the Nauru agreement and which have a fairly uniform policy on distant-water fleet access. But that could still be done, using the contact and trust that has been built up over the past two years of talks.

The bilateral aid negotiations with Fiji (RlM,August P2O) also represent cause for optimism.

But the Americans must know that they can’t have it both ways. It’s not possible for them or Australia to express doubts about other nations’ foreign dealings while, for example, the US proposes to sell subsidised wheat to the Soviet Union with which it also has a fishery agreement.

So while that battle for hearts and minds is by no means over, the Americans are beginning to look like losers. Washington really needs to get its act to gether.