Non - alignment for NZ

The recent setbacks for dairy exports to the United States may convince the most rabid supporters of its foreign policy that unlimited backing by New Zealand doesn't necessarily mean better trading prospects.

In fact the time is long overdue for an official re-examination of our foreign policy goals and consideration of the means we are using to attain them.

As the Cold War developed in the late 40s and New Zealand began to feel its independence from Britain the Government adopted the foreign policy of the United States, believing it to be a good insurance policy.

When the then Prime Minister, Sir Sidney Holland, arrived back from the United States in 1950 he said, "America right or wrong," and although this expression is not used today the dictum still applies.

The question of foreign policy has produced a curious alliance between many New Zealand academics and the politicians. The academics argue a non-aligned policy is not practicable because it would necessitate greatly increased defence expenditure.

However, these arguments are derived from theories based mainly on European experience and are largely irrelevant to New Zealand.

They make inadequate allowance for the fact that New Zealand is not in a strategic position. It is a little island near the bottom of the Pacific—not well known throughout the world.

Thus the chances of an aggressor nation are somewhat remote. On its own, New Zealand is just not worth taking over. However, although we are not of immediate strategic concern neither power bloc would stand by and see us absorbed by the other.

In other words, the United States, with or without a request, would come to our "aid" if we were threatened by a Communist takeover. Treaties are unnecessary.

The commercial implications of our foreign policy are not clear. It would appear, as Australia has found from experience, The Peoples Republic of China is willing to trade with anyone, as is the Soviet Union. In the case of the latter, special efforts have been made in recent months to induce the New Zealand Government to increase trade.

The only thing that is clear is that nothing can be expected from either Australia or the United States in the way of trade concessions. Perhaps if our foreign policy were independent, these nations would make some attempt to gain our favour on certain questions.

At the moment we are a useful weapon Washington can employ on any of its Asian adventures. Politically, we have little to lose and, commercially, possibly some gains to make by adopting an independent stand on international questions.

And, most important, New Zealand could acquire that dignity which is so difficult while our politicians are mere pawns in Cold War politics.