New Zealand Takes On the U.S.

By Michael Gawenda, David Lange.

The U.S. and New Zealand have been feuding since 1984, when Prime Minister David Lange kept an election promise to ban American nuclear-armed and -powered ships from his country's ports. In effect, that killed the ANZUS Security Treaty linking Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. in defense of the southern Pacific.

The U.S., contending that New Zealand had violated its responsibilities to the alliance, stopped sending naval vessels on port calls there and suspended security guarantees and high-level contacts with the Wellington government. The treaty remained technically in effect, however, and the U.S. hoped Lange might come around. But last week, in an address at Yale University, he declared that New Zealand might soon officially withdraw from ANZUS. "Between the U.S. and New Zealand, the security alliance is a dead letter," said the Prime Minister, who was snubbed by Washington during his visit to the U.S. "The basis of the alliance was a commitment to consult. Consultation has stopped."

For the U.S., the issue goes well beyond New Zealand. Washington fears for its other security alliances if nuclear ships are denied port privileges. State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said withdrawing was New Zealand's "prerogative." But, she added, the fault was Wellington's refusal to welcome the U.S. Navy, not Washington's refusal to consult.

Lange is just as determined to stand by his decision. In his Wellington office before leaving for the U.S., Lange, 46, delivered a feisty defense of his policy to TIME AUSTRALIA senior writer Michael Gawenda.

Q. You're going to the U.S. but not to Washington. What does that say about U.S.-New Zealand relations?

A. It says the U.S. deems it important not to have any upper-ranking contact with anyone from New Zealand. That's their decision, not ours.

Q. How do you feel about that?

A. We have quite a congenial relationship. I don't get hung up about it. We have had expanding trade with them. But they have this policy of denying us any contact with high Administration officials.

Q. Are you missing out on anything?

A. I think they miss out on something. I can't help being amazed that they can carry on that way with us while expanding, in a quite constructive way, their relationships with countries that aren't their allies or friends. In the light of that, I can't help thinking that their attitude to New Zealand is strange.

Q. Has New Zealand suffered from the breakdown of ANZUS?

A. No. We have benefited because we have had to grapple with the question of what defense means to us. There was a time when you could only explain our defense forces in terms of being one small cog in someone else's wheel. We've come to the realization that we will never be able to singlehandedly repulse any determined onslaught on New Zealand. The truth is that the biggest threat to our security is natural disaster. So we have to have a real defense capacity to cope with localized insurrections and to help out in the region when natural disasters strike.

We have had to examine our self-reliance. When the U.S. was a fully committed member of ANZUS, we had two days' ammunition and no spare parts. Well, we have had to change that, and it has cost us. We have had to spend money for equipment that otherwise would have been provided by the U.S. on the former paternalistic basis. Our message is that our position on the nuclear question is resolved, and it will continue. We are disposed to be cooperative with great powers and small powers, but we will not do so at the cost of our nuclear policy.