Friendship on a Scrap Heap?

The United States and New Zealand are old friends. To speak of a “crisis” in U.S. relations with New Zealand is shocking. Yet there is one, precipitated by the refusal by New Zealand’s Labor government to allow visits by a U.S. warship that might be carrying nuclear arms. Even with delicate handling, a 33-year-old treaty may wind up on the scrap heap.

The ANZUS treaty links Australia, New Zealand and the United States in a common defense of the South Pacific area. Periodically its members conduct joint naval exercises during which U.S. warships have frequently called at ports in Australia and New Zealand.

Last July, New Zealand’s Labor Party came to power on a platform that included a pledge to ban visits by ships that were either nuclear-powered or carried nuclear weapons. David Lange, the new prime minister, said that he would abide by the platform. Since about 80% of all U.S. warships are said to be capable of firing nuclear weapons, that meant trouble for ANZUS.

With Pentagon cooperation, Secretary of State George P. Shultz did his best to paper over the disagreement while giving the new government in Wellington a chance to change its mind. After a seven-month wait, Washington asked permission to send a destroyer to New Zealand at the conclusion of joint naval ANZUS exercises scheduled for March.

Permission was refused because the United States declined to say that the vessel carried no nuclear weapons. The United States has a longstanding policy against disclosing which warships are nuclear-armed--partly for security reasons, partly to avoid trouble from anti-nuclear demonstrators in Japanese ports. New Zealand’s adamant stand left Washington little choice. It pulled out of the March naval exercises.

The Labor government’s position would be more defensible if the issue were nuclear bases in New Zealand. But Lange’s argument that brief visits by nuclear warships might make New Zealand a target for attack is not credible.

The large and growing Soviet naval forces in the Pacific are nuclear-armed; for balance, U.S. defense forces committed to New Zealand’s defense must be equipped with nuclear weapons, too. If New Zealand is allowed to remain in the alliance while forbidding port visits by nuclear warships, pressures for the same prohibition could become irresistible in Australia and other Pacific nations.

To further complicate ANZUS relations, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who sides with the United States in the ship dispute, now has withdrawn an offer to let Americans use Australian facilities during MX missile tests because of pressures from his own Labor Party.

Administration officials called the cancellation of U.S. participation in the March naval exercise a “first step,” and said that additional moves were under study. Economic retaliation was mentioned. That was uncalled for; such talk would only strengthen Lange’s position, even among New Zealanders and Australians who think he is wrong.

Fortunately, Washington moderated its rhetoric on Wednesday, saying that economic retaliation is not in the cards and making the obvious point that “if New Zealand doesn’t want to be an ally, that doesn’t mean it has become an enemy.”

But the future of ANZUS is in the balance. As Hawke told Lange last month, those who share the protection provided by such treaties must also share the risks. The Wellington government has a sovereign right to disagree, but it should understand that it may be pronouncing the death knell for ANZUS--and for the formal U.S. commitment to New Zealand’s defense.