T.Stewart@massey.ac.nz (12/21/89)
From: T.Stewart@massey.ac.nz [mod.note: Posted with hesitation. There's a lot of political comment here, but the military relevance is obvious. Please be careful of your responses, especially in tone. More vigorous replies are best kept to email. - Bill ] Andrew Parle (parle@ditsyda.oz ) in Sci.environment (Re. Greenpeace) writes.... >Perhaps the most instructive case of the US attitude to "allies" is that >of New Zealand (who had proportionally at least an equal role with Oz in >WWII). Some in the US see NZ as being "ungrateful" when all it was doing >was legitimately pursuing its own interests. This ingratitude has to be >punished. You would not believe how stupid and vindictive this attitude >appears from this end, and how much damage it did to Australian perceptions >of the US. As a New Zealander, I must agree with the above. Not a good example of how to win friends and influence people. For others on the NET who may not know the situation re. NZ/USA defence relations, a brief summary is as follows... For many years Australia, NZ and the US had been part of a defence agreement called ANZUS. The agreement was that in the event of military aggression in the region, participating countries would consult with one another and co-operate in forming plans to repel the external aggressor. It did not guarantee one country would come to the aid of another in the event of hostilities, although this was implied. Up to 1984, U.S. warships regularly visited N.Z. ports for R+R in the course of Pacific patrols. Most N.Z.' ders welcomed or were ambivalent to these visits but since the late '70's a growing number of vocal "peace" groups had emerged which desired a ban on all nuclear powered and armed warships visiting this country. The following reasons were given: - A nuclear accident on one of these ships could cause widespread damage. (It must be remembered that N.Z. has no nuclear power plants, weapons or nuclear powered ships. Thus a nuclear ship in the harbour exposes NZ to a "new" risk albeit very small) - Nuclear armed ships in our ports would make NZ a target for missiles in the event of an outbreak of superpower hostilities - N.Z. should make a "moral" stand against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, by banning them from our country (no matter who they belonged to). While quite a large section of the New Zealand population agreed with these points, many NZ'ders saw ship visits from superpowers as a "necessary evil", and that we were too small and vulnerable a country to stand isolated, if indeed it came to that. Many older New Zealanders still remembered and were grateful for the role the US played in defeating the Japanese in the Pacific in WW2. In 1984 N.Z. held a general election which the Labour Party won. In political terms this party was fairly middle-of-the road, even right- wing as subsequent economic policies revealed. It had however, adopted as part of its manifesto, a "no nukes" policy. Many cynics regarded this as simply a policy plank to capture the left-wing vote. Whilst it was the "no nukes" policy that grabbed world headlines after the election, It must be pointed out that the election was not won by Labour on that alone. There were a host of other, local issues which played a part. Only a few people would have considered the "no nukes" policy as sole determinant between the two major political parties. Anyway, some time later the U.S.A. requested a ship visit. In accordance with policy, out government asked if the ship was nuclear powered and, in particular, if it would be carrying nuclear arms. The U.S. responded with its usual neither confirm or deny policy. As there was no way the NZ government could ascertain that the vessel was nuclear free, the visit was refused. After this refusal, the U.S. government deemed ANZUS unworkable. Along with this however, the following occurred: - N.Z. was banned from any joint ANZUS exercises - Military intelligence and consultation was withdrawn - "Discount" prices on military hardware were withdrawn - N.Z. was downgraded from an ally to a "friendly nation"! - Trade restrictions against N.Z. were mooted (although never came to anything) - The USA would not longer be a "helpful" nation when negotiating trade deals - Members of the NZ government were (and are continuing to be) snubbed by the US government. Our Prime Minister can only get access to minor officials. There is evidence that the U.S.A consulate here knew that French agents were in NZ to blow up Greenpeace's "Rainbow Warrior" in 1985, but choose not to pass on the information to the NZ government because of the "ANZUS tiff". When NZ complained to the UN regarding this act of terrorism by France, the silence by our so-called friends (UK, USA) was deafening. (So much for the history....Now for my opinions.) I feel the US was correct in saying that ANZUS was now unworkable. Our government for a number of years continued to take a contrary view, largely to counter defence fears here at home. - but I realise we can't eat our cake and have it too. This notwithstanding, the "punishments" listed above were a gross over-reaction! Would not the best strategy been to play it cool, perhaps send a few conventional ships, and meantime work through diplomatic channels to get a softening or acceptable modification of the policy, or perhaps a re-negotiation of ANZUS. Many NZ'ders were concerned of the defence implications of the policy and pressure was going on the NZ government to soften its approach and it may have done so in a year or two. Another option would be to simply wait for a change of government! The opposition party had a policy of open-entry to all ships. Instead of the above, the U.S.A. government acted in a very heavy-handed manner which has done nothing to enhance their image in this region of the world. Essentially, the message was "Toe the line buddy....or else! This, to a small democratic country who were simply trying to determine their own destiny - a concept the USA was suppose to be the champion of. The irony of it is, that it had just the opposite effect to what the U.S. intended. People who supported ship visits, or the large majority who didn't care one way or another suddenly started to feel as if this country was being bullied. In fact, I would say most people now support the "no nukes policy", because they don't like being pushed around, so much so that it is unlikely the opposition party would now change the government's policy even if it was voted in. Also, it has showed NZ' ders that we can survive without the US nuclear defence umbrella (there is no evidence of hordes of invaders) and has strengthened our defence ties with Australia. That's not to say that there is a general anti-feeling against *American people* here in N.Z. There is not. Rather it is a feeling of dismay, bewilderment and perhaps a little anger that the *American Government* has chosen to take the approach it has. The continual diplomatic snubs do gall. Although NZ has about as much influence on world affairs as a flea would on an elephant, one wonders why the President of the USA has no hesitation in meeting the head of state of potential "enemies" but refuses to meet with the head of state of a supposed "friendly" nation. Petty and vindictive! Terry Stewart ----------------------- These are my personal opinions. Any relationships between these and those of my employer are strictly coincidental. -----------------------
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (12/22/89)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12507@cbnews.ATT.COM> T.Stewart@massey.ac.nz writes: >[deleted stuff about background of ANZUS] >After this refusal, the U.S. government deemed ANZUS unworkable. Along >with this however, the following occurred: > >- N.Z. was banned from any joint ANZUS exercises >- Military intelligence and consultation was withdrawn >- "Discount" prices on military hardware were withdrawn >- N.Z. was downgraded from an ally to a "friendly nation"! >- Trade restrictions against N.Z. were mooted (although never came to > anything) >- The USA would not longer be a "helpful" nation when negotiating trade >deals >- Members of the NZ government were (and are continuing to be) snubbed > by the US government. Our Prime Minister can only get access to minor > officials. > [stuff deleted about how unfair these "punishments" were] I'll try to stay away from political comments. It seems that all but the last of the "punishments" imposed were directly related to the status of NZ as a defense ally. You stipulate that the NZ position about nuclear armed vessels made ANZUS unworkable. The "punishments" all reflected that change. Why are they unfair? I realize that NZ is a country trying to choose its own destiny, but the USA is also trying to choose it's own destiny. Why should a country continue to receive the benefits of an alliance that they unilaterally abrogated? As you ponted out, NZ is not an influential country. It does have an advantageous position for some US concerns. The ANZUS arrangement and the benefits froms that arrangement reflected the advantages of NZ to the US, and the close relations between the two countries. Essentially almost any USN warship has the capability of carrying nuclear weapons. Considering the consolidated nature of modern underway replenishment ships any of them can also carry nukes. Granted in peacetime there may be very few actually aboard any vessel. The policy of the USN relative to the existence of nukes on a particular ship is rational. To confirm or deny such weapons would provide feedback to any intelligence agency that was interested in tracking the position of such weapons. It's another issue altogether to discuss whether nukes have any place in future conflicts. Since the navy has been tasked with deliverying them, they have to provide policies in support of that decision. It is the policy of the US government that US armed forces may be able to use nuclear weapons. Consequently, the US armed forces have policies to support the deployment of those weapons. Any country that enters into a defense agreement with the US is aware of those policies, even though the particular defense agreement may not include the use of nuclear weapons. In the case of NZ, the primary value to the USA is as a naval facility. Now the NZ goverment establishes a policy that no nuclear armed or powered vessels can enter ports. Since any USN warship is in that category, no USN vessel can enter a NZ port. The military value of NZ as an ally just disappeared. The US simply changed its policies in reaction to the NZ decision. That doesn't appear to be "bullying". (For what it is worth, I see no military value to the use of even tactical nukes. Due to the peculiarities of naval operations they make even less sense than in land operations. Due to environmental considerations the use of an underwater burst may be more damaging to the firing vessel than the target. So I am not irrationally reacting to a "stab in the back" to my country. In the case of NZ I see one country changing national policies and another (the US) reacting to a new reality.) -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
T.Stewart@massey.ac.nz (01/22/90)
From: T.Stewart@massey.ac.nz My thanks to all those who replied via-email to my posting regarding ANZUS. I realise that Sci.military was not quite appropriate for a discussion of this nature but we (NZ) only subscribe to a limited number of newsgroups and do not receive Talk.politics and the like. I have endevoured to answer all respondents via e-mail with the exception of the one public posting which occurred. Unfortunately, this article was lost at this end before I could reply to any of the points. If the author could send me a copy I will gladly address (via e-mail) the points raised. For the record, I still think the U.S. government over-reacted to the situation (particularly the continuing diplomatic snubs and talk of trade reprisals) and in doing so alienated a large number of N.Z.'ders sympathetic to the U.S.A. position. However, I accept that our Government is also at fault, particularly with its desire to stay in ANZUS yet ban nuclear warships. As I said in the original posting - we can't have our cake and eat it too. One thing the letters have given me, is an appreciation of how the issue appears to ordinary folks from the other (U.S.) side. That's something you can't always get out of the media. The present "diplomatic freeze" is in the interests of neither country and I can only hope a "thaw" is just around the corner although it may take a change in Government (N.Z. or U.S.) to do it. We have an election scheduled for the middle of this year and the present regime is fairly unpopular. Terry Stewart Massey University ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Any relationship between my views and views of my employer etc. are entirely coincidental