U.S. to End Defense of N. Zealand : Premier Refuses Shultz Appeal to Lift Nuclear Ban

The United States said Friday that it would revoke its 35-year-old “security guarantee” to defend New Zealand in the event of war after Prime Minister David Lange rejected an appeal by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to lift a ban on port visits by nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered warships.

“We part company as friends, but we part company,” Shultz told reporters after meeting with Lange.

A senior U.S. official told reporters later that the only thing remaining to be done is for the U.S. security guarantee for New Zealand to be withdrawn formally but that no decision on timing had been taken.

Responsibilities Over

But he added, “Our responsibilities do not really apply there.”

The U.S.-New Zealand dispute, which has been simmering since Lange’s Labor Party government took office in 1984, reached its climax during the 40-minute meeting in Shultz’s hotel suite. Lange refused to change his anti-nuclear policy. So Shultz told him that under the circumstances, the United States considers New Zealand to have withdrawn from the 1951 ANZUS treaty, to which Australia, New Zealand and the United States are signatories.

“The United States considers that the treaty, at least as it has been understood, doesn’t apply (any longer) in the sense of the responsibility of the United States to extend its security protection to New Zealand,” Shultz told a press conference.

First Such Case

U.S. officials could recall no other friendly country from which the United States had withdrawn a promise of assistance in the event of attack. These officials said the revocation had not yet been made official, but they said there was no doubt that it would be.

Lange said New Zealand is prepared to do without U.S. security guarantees. He said his country might be safer without them because of the nuclear basis of U.S. military power.

“People of New Zealand are not afraid because they do not see a nuclear weapons defense of New Zealand as a security assurance,” Lange told a press conference. “They, in fact, do not see being defended by nuclear weapons as any sort of assurance.”

New Zealand refuses to have nuclear weapons on its territory, a position that it shares with other nations including Denmark and Iceland, both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But New Zealand is more rigorous in enforcing that ban, refusing to permit ships to call at its ports unless they are certified to be conventionally powered and without nuclear weapons.

The United States, as a matter of policy, refuses to say whether its warships or warplanes are carrying nuclear weapons. Most friendly nations, including those with anti-nuclear policies, accept this ambiguity and allow U.S. naval vessels to call at their ports.

U.S. officials said that New Zealand will be allowed to buy spare parts for American-made weapons it already owns but that future requests for arms purchases might be refused.

It was an astonishing breach in what had been one of Washington’s strongest alliances. The United States and New Zealand, which fought on the same side in World War I and World War II, are both English-speaking democracies with similar values, right down to the tradition of frontier informality in social relationships.

Designed To Deter Others

Shultz made it clear that Washington’s harsh reaction was designed to deter other nations from joining New Zealand in adopting anti-nuclear measures.

“I’d hate to see the New Zealand policy spread because it would basically cripple the ability of the United States and its allies to defend the values that we and New Zealand and others share,” he said.

Although U.S. officials said there seems to be no direct Soviet threat to New Zealand, Shultz said the Soviets are actively trying to increase their influence in the Pacific islands north and west of Australia and New Zealand.

Canadian External Affairs Minister Joe Clark deplored the dispute, which he said would give Moscow an opportunity to expand its influence in the region.

“It is self-evident the Soviet Union is going to move to take advantage of any apparent division in the Western position,” Clark said. “Consequently, (the U.S.-New Zealand dispute) will be seen as an opportunity by the Soviet Union. That, I think, is a concern to anyone genuinely concerned about Soviet aspirations, as we are.”

Defense Commitments

Lange insisted that New Zealand is upholding its commitments to Australia and the United States despite its refusal to allow U.S. naval vessels into its ports.

“It does not mean that New Zealand is not discharging its responsibilities,” Lange said. “It has bilateral cooperation with Australia. We are meeting our defense obligations to our neighbors. We are increasing our defensive exercises with the small Pacific island states near it. That is what New Zealand does best and that is what New Zealand should do. We will not have nuclear weapons in New Zealand.”

Shultz and Lange were in Manila as part of the annual “dialogue” among the six members of the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations and representatives of five industrialized nations--Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States--plus the European Communities.

With the United States and New Zealand placed next to each other in alphabetical order, Shultz and Lange sat side by side at a joint press conference at the end of the meeting. Although U.S. officials said their private meeting was friendly, Shultz and Lange did not appear to talk to each other before or during the press conference. Lange occasionally seemed to turn to Shultz and smile, apparently for the benefit of photographers.

Minimizes Impact

Lange sought to minimize the impact of the withdrawal of U.S. security guarantees. He said he could not believe that if New Zealand came under attack, the United States would not come to its aid.

But a U.S. official said, “He may not be able to imagine that (the United States would refuse to help New Zealand in an emergency), but it’s hard for us to imagine that New Zealand would not allow our ships in its ports.”

So far, the ban has been imposed only by a government policy, which could be changed by the government at any time. However, the New Zealand Parliament is considering legislation to write the prohibition into law.