Eye on the nuclear umbrella club

I MAKE no apology for returning to the question of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific for the second consecutive month. It is, after all, one of the key issues that unites all the Pacific nations; one in which New Zealand has, through the Rainbow Warrior bombing, a direct and sad national involvement and after 25 years it shows no sign of going away.

But I do so with some puzzlement. What is Jim Bolger’s National government up to?

Three weeks after the now-ousted French Prime Minister Michel Rocard had visited these shores to make personal atonement for the Rainbow Warrior affair, the New Zealand government made a curious change in policy.

It decided to abandon the former practice of making a formal protest after each and every test and instead issued a statement of

condemnation only once a year — at the start of each test series.

Bolger, who had said all the right things to Rocard during his visit, reaffirming New Zealand’s opposition to the tests, played dow r n the move.

He said it was not a policy change but a procedural one; the government had not retreated “one iota” from its position and the move had nothing to do with Rocard’s visit.

Well, in the absence of any explanation as to exactly why he was making this change — be it one of procedure or policy one has to treat all that with some incredulity. It cannot be, for instance, that drafting the statements imposed too huge a workload on the bureaucracy or the cost of the paper involved added an unbearable burden to the country’s budgetary

problems.

It has to be admitted that New Zealand’s constant stream of protests over the years had not persuaded the French to stop testing in the Pacific. But it should be recalled that it was united Pacific opposition, led by New Zealand sending a protest frigate to the test zone in 1973 and the joint New Zealand-Australian case at the International Court of Justice the following year, that had forced the French underground.

And New Zealand’s unilateral action unilateral in that Australia is continuing to make its protest after every test can only weaken the united front of opposition to French nuclear testing in the Pacific that the two major regional powers have spearheaded for a quarter of a century.

If Bolger maintained the move did not indicate any dilution of New Zealand’s opposition the French, who being fond of diplomatic niceties had always been sensitive to the constant stream of criticism, certainly did not see it that way.

A Paris Foreign Ministry official was quick to hail the decision as showing that New Zealand now realised the tests were not as dangerous as it had previously thought. He linked the change to Rocard’s visit, saying relations between the two countries had now improved and hinted that French scientists had satisfied the New Zealand government as to the harmlessness of the tests.

The government’s Public Advisory Committee on

Disarmament and Arms Control immediately urged Bolger to ensure that a condemnation of the French tests be included in the communique of this month’s South Pacific Forum meeting in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. There was no specific reference to the tests in last year’s communique at Vanuatu, an omission which French diplomats were quick to seize on as having a significance that did not exist.

I understand that despite the recent policy change, New Zealand will readily support a reference to French testing this year if heads of state want it, though Bolger is unlikely to take the lead in pushing for its inclusion.

The only explanation for the move to what will now be seen as token opposition to the tests is the government’s desire to improve the dialogue with France now that the Rainbow Warrior affair has been laid to rest.

What concerns many, given the National government’s simultaneous wish to improve relations with the United States and Britain, is the nagging thought that it could also indicate a softening of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance.

Bolger and his Foreign Minister Don McKinnon, who has personal convictions driving him to seek a restoration of defence and security ties with the US, would strenuously deny this. Both have insisted they have no plans to repeal or significantly amend the former Labour government’s anti-nuclear legislation in “the forseeable future”.

But McKinnon makes no secret of his intention to try to turn public opinion around to accept the need for restoration of defence links with the Americans. He has advocated a full return to traditionally close defence and security ties with the US and Britain which were disrupted by the anti-nuclear policy.

Barring an unforeseen change in American policy, this will inevitably mean nuclear ship visits.

This much was made clear when McKinnon visited Washington in May. While he went with the aim of improving the political relationship, senior administration officials made it clear that all the warm feelings in the world would not restore the defence and security relationship while the anti-nuclear legislation remains on the statute books.

Most New Zealanders would probably be happy to renew those traditional defence ties as long as the dedication to keep the South Pacific nuclear-free remains undiluted. And the government has not produced any evidence that New Zealand is disadvantaged in any way by its exclusion from the nuclear umbrella club.

Closer ties with France and the US are all part of what Bolger and McKinnon call their government’s drive for a “new internationalism”. One can only hope that this vision which includes restoring traditional links with Europe and South Africa and building new relations with Asia is not to be pursued at the expense of the early commitment McKinnon ma.de on taking office to consolidating New Zealand’s rightful place at home in the South Pacific. □

Wellington

David

Barber