Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXII, Southeast Asia and the Pacific

266. Intelligence Memorandum Prepared in the Central Intelligence Agency¹

PA M 79–10426

Washington, September 14, 1979

South Pacific: Nuclear Attitudes

Key Points

Concern among the states of the South Pacific over nuclear contamination is widespread and of long standing, honed by years of apprehension over French nuclear testing in French Polynesia. The attitudes of these states toward nuclear matters have been demonstrated in:

—Efforts to create a nuclear free zone.

—Debates over port visits by nuclear powered vessels.

—Resistance to the storage of spent nuclear fuel in the area. [portion marking not declassified]

New Zealand’s Labor government, in office from late 1972 until late 1975, first articulated these concerns as self-proclaimed spokesman for the more passive South Pacific island states. The current National Party government in New Zealand has soft-pedaled the nuclear issue, but another Labor government would be certain to renew agitation. [portion marking not declassified]

Australia, although heavily involved in aid programs and commercial activities in the South Pacific, has given only perfunctory support to New Zealand initiatives on nuclear issues. [portion marking not declassified]

Nuclear Free Zone

A nuclear-weapons-free zone—a central feature in South Pacific thinking on nuclear issues—was the inspiration of Norman Kirk, Labor Prime Minister of New Zealand from late 1972 until his death in office in September 1974. Kirk intended a nuclear free zone to force an end to French nuclear testing. His successor, Wallace Rowling, rekindled the idea in early 1975 in part to cash in on Kirk’s popularity. Rowling apparently also envisioned regional restrictions on nuclear weapons and nuclear powered ships. In the spring of 1975, New Zealand officials presented the US Ambassador in Wellington with an outline of a proposal for such a zone. They emphasized that it would apply, at least initially, only to the territory, territorial waters, and air space of the South Pacific countries, not to the high seas. They insisted that advocacy of a zone did not imply any lessening of the importance New Zealand attaches to the ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States) treaty relationship with the United States, a tie that has been the focus on New Zealand foreign policy since World War II. [portion marking not declassified]

The United States, while sympathetic to South Pacific concerns over earlier French atmospheric testing, had strong reservations about the nuclear-free zone proposal, in that it could presage restrictions on internationally recognized rights of free passage of ships and aircraft over the open seas. Prime Minister Rowling, contrary to his earlier assurances to the United States that “there would be no problem with respect to movement,” stated in August 1975 that he sought to bar nuclear-armed vessels from the zone. Rowling’s position called into question New Zealand’s earlier assertions that a zone would not disturb existing security arrangements. Most of the consequences of the implementation of such a proposed zone would fall on the United States because other possessors of nuclear weapons do not have the traditional presence, stategic interests, alliance commitments and territory in the Pacific area. The tendency of the New Zealand Labor government to blur the distinction between nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion was an additional source of concern for US interests. Any restrictions on the mobility of US forces, particularly with the increased use of nuclear powered ships, would detract from the ability of the US to carry out its obligations under the ANZUS treaty. [portion marking not declassified]

The Rowling government nevertheless persisted in efforts to get UN endorsement of the concept of a South Pacific nuclear-weapons-free zone. Fiji cosponsored such a resolution at the UN and other South Pacific island nations supported it, although all but New Zealand felt that a nuclear ban should apply only to testing and not to nuclear powered ships or those carrying nuclear weapons. The UN General Assembly voted for the principle of a South Pacific nuclear-free zone in December 1975,² after the New Zealand Labor government had been voted out of office but just before the new National Party government had been sworn in. Australia voted for the zone out of a sense of Commonwealth solidarity but was not enthusiastic. The US abstained. [portion marking not declassified]

The National Party government under Robert Muldoon that came into office in late 1975 quickly scuttled the nuclear-free zone as “woolly-headed.” New Zealand has continued to support the creation of nuclear-free zones in principle, both in the UN and in the South Pacific Forum (the 12-member regional organization of island nations and dependencies plus Australia and New Zealand), but with the reservation that they not jeopardize traditional freedom or navigation of the high seas or existing security arrangements. Foreign Minister Talboys restated this position most recently at the UN special session on disarmament in June 1978. The South Pacific Forum has not focused on the issue since its March 1976 session, when the thrust of discussion, as guided by Fijian Prime Minister Mara, was to register continued opposition to French nuclear testing rather than to promote a scheme that would prohibit nuclear-powered ships or those carrying nuclear weapons. [portion marking not declassified]

Although a South Pacific nuclear-weapons-free zone is dead so far as the National Party government in New Zealand is concerned, opposition Labor leader Rowling continues to espouse the concept, and any future Labor government would renew agitation on the issue. Typical of the lingering sentiment in the South Pacific that Labor could play upon was the recent incident in Fiji in connection with the visit of a US naval vessel. Although the ship was not nuclear-powered, the Fijian press speculated over whether it had nuclear weapons on board. The ship’s captain, in accordance with standard instructions, would neither confirm nor deny the reports. This prompted a Fijian cabinet minister, although a friend of the United States, to cancel a scheduled luncheon aboard the ship.³ [portion marking not declassified]

Nuclear Powered Ships

New Zealand’s resistance to port calls by nuclear-powered ships had worrisome implications as the US Navy became increasingly dependent on nuclear propulsion. Again the New Zealand Labor Government, because of its tendency to lump nuclear weapons with nuclear propulsion, led the opposition. It refused—during its term in office from late 1972 to late 1975—to budge from its prohibition on port visits. In this stand, it had the support of a strong body of New Zealand public opinion that feared nuclear radiation. National Party Prime Minister Muldoon, who assumed office in late 1975, asserted, however, that New Zealand could not expect a dependable security relationship with the United States if it continued to bar the most modern US naval vessels from its ports. [portion marking not declassified]

Nevertheless, public opinion on the subject was such that Muldoon found it wise to wait until mid-1976 before lifting the ban on port visits. Since then, there have been four port calls by US nuclear-powered naval vessels, the last in January 1979. Each has provoked hostile demonstrations, and popular feelings over the issue remained sufficiently strong that in 1978 the US Embassy recommended that no visits be requested during that year because of national elections in November. Rowling, as head of the Labor opposition, continues to inveigh against visits by nuclear-powered warships. A Labor government would be certain to reimpose the ban, knowing it would have the support of a highly vocal minority of the New Zealand population. [portion marking not declassified]

Nuclear Storage

A new and current worry among the South Pacific states is the possibility of a nuclear storage site in the Pacific. Island nations voice this concern without any prodding by New Zealand. A major topic at the annual meeting in July of the South Pacific Forum was US consideration of a storage facility in the Pacific for spent nuclear fuel. Forum members, expressing apprehension over leaching of nuclear waste into fishing waters, voted unanimously to urge the United States to abandon study of a storage site on one of three US-owned islands—Palmyra, Midway, or Wake.⁴ [portion marking not declassified]

Australia’s Attitude

Attitudes in Australia toward both a South Pacific nuclear-weapons-free zone and port calls by nuclear-powered vessels have been more relaxed than those in New Zealand. The Australian Labor Party, in particular, has taken a markedly different stance from that of its New Zealand counterpart. Although the Australian Labor government under Gough Whitlam took France to the International Court of Justice in 1973 over French nuclear testing in the Pacific (France refused to accept the court’s jurisdiction), Whitlam did not actively support the campaign in the UN to have the South Pacific designated a nuclear-weapons-free zone. Indeed, he tried to dissuade Rowling from pursuing the idea, arguing that it was impractical because it could not be policed and would cause unwanted strains with the United States. Australia finally voted in favor of the UN resolution supporting the concept, but did not lobby for it. Australia’s position on the issue reflected—in addition to its desire not to create problems with the United States—its greater distance from [less than 1 line not declassified] the South Pacific [1½ lines not declassified]. [portion marking not declassified]

Concern over nuclear contamination and proliferation, although common in Australia, is not as deepseated as in New Zealand. Australia refused for some years to export uranium, fearing a contribution to nuclear proliferation. Canberra now permits uranium exports but imposes stringent end use controls to prevent the use of uranium in weapons. Similarly, fears of nuclear contamination delayed permission for port calls by US nuclear-powered warships. The Australian ban was imposed in July 1971 by the Liberal-Country government out of concern over safety and US liability in case of an accident. The succeeding Labor government, realizing that the US Navy’s increasing reliance on nuclear-powered ships could not be ignored, was moving toward permission for port visits by US nuclear-powered naval vessels when it was voted out of office in December 1975. The new Liberal-Country government permitted the resumption of port calls in August 1976. The size of protest demonstrations during US port calls has gradually diminished, and public opinion polls show that the majority of Australians now favor such calls. Still, feeling remains sufficiently intense in two states—New South Wales and South Australia—to discourage any early plans for visits there. [portion marking not declassified]

With the Australian Labor Party’s record of greater reasonableness on both the nuclear free zone issue and port calls, the prospects of difficulties on these two points are less with a future Australian Labor government than they would be with a Labor administration in New Zealand. Under Whitlam’s successor—Bill Hayden—Australian Labor has become more moderate. The firebrands of the early 1970s who railed against US policy in Vietnam are now retired or voted out of office. In contrast, Rowling remains in control of New Zealand’s Labor Party, and his hardline attitudes would prevail if he again became prime minister. [portion marking not declassified]

1. Source: Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Support Services (DI), Job 82T00267R: Production Case Files, Box 1, Folder 128: South Pacific: Nuclear Attitudes. Secret; [handling restriction not declassified]. A note on the first page reads, “This paper, based on information as of 10 September 1979, was prepared by [name not declassified], East Asia and Pacific Division, Office of Political Analysis. The paper was requested by Evelyn Colbert, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific. It was coordinated with Office of Scientific Intelligence and Office of Strategic Research and the National Intelligence Officers for East Asia Pacific and for Nuclear Proliferation. Comment and queries should be addressed to the author, [less than 1 line not declassified].”
2. UN General Assembly Resolution 3477 (XXX) was adopted on December 11, 1975.
3. Telegram 2601 from Suva, August 9, reported on the incident. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790360–1124)
4. The resolution passed by the South Pacific Forum at its meeting in Honiara July 11–13 was sent to Ambassador Olmsted on July 16. (Telegram 1024 from Port Moresby, July 23; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790335–0801)