Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 30, No. 11. 1967.

Editorials

page 6

Editorials

August 8, 1967

Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of VUWSA.

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.

B.G.S.

Vietnam issue unclear

Vietnam is the most complicated issue in current world politics, and it is the issue that so many pretend to be the simplest. Both hawks and doves are guilty of clouding the issue beyond assessment.

If it could be proved that China's interest in the war were aggressive and expansionist, our commitment would be justified—we have a right to protect our freedom and the freedom of our fellows.

China's diplomatic efforts in Africa involving much expense and talent (both badly needed at home), her diversion of resources into nuclear weaponry instead of to a thirsty economy, and her ideological aims, do suggest expansionist interests.

For the hawks these are sufficient proof. "We ignored Mein Kampf for too long, we can't accord Mao's Thoughts the same foolery."

But the issue is far from this simple. Despite China's assistance to Ho Chi Minh, there is much to suggest the North's struggles to be nationalist in character. So nationalist in fact that China could not hope to dominate her southern neighbour.

The Vietnamese civilisation extends for some thousand years. The two-Vietnams situation is a minute time fraction when seen against this background. It is understandable for there to be an impassioned desire for unity.

Ho did not pander to the Japanese in 1945, he did not allow French domination in the years following, and he is not allowing American domination at the present time. It is most unlikely that he would meekly succumb to Chinese domination in the future.

Now the doves are satisfied. "Let the country unite in terms of its historical identity—as provided for in the Geneva Treaty of 1954."

Such is our present confusion. Some argue in present world politics there are two forces polarised in opposition — communism and free enterprise.

A festering economic gap which promotes so much militarism is neglected and shrugged off as a side issue.

Then there are those who say it's all a matter of nationalism, the imperialist nationalism of America seeks to dominate the nationalism of Asia born of economic necessity.

So many who argue in this vein profess a love of mankind yet maintain the ability to hate the next-door neighbour because he happens to be in the RSA, or the Prime Minister, or anyone who disagrees.

To be intellectually honest we can only conclude there is no clarity. It would be comforting to flee into either camp and pretend there is no confusion. But our personal comfort is no basis on which to determine war or no war.

If we are to be committed to war the issue should be clear.

General Taylor, Sir, we don't want to help you because we can find no clear reason why we should.

G.P.C.