Britain May Drive Hard Bargain On Defence

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30959, 15 January 1966, Page 3

Britain May Drive Hard Bargain On Defence

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, January 14. The Government’s military and foreign affairs advisers are preparing for what they regard as one of the most important rounds of talks scheduled for many years between the Defence Ministers of Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

The talks were sought by Britain. They are likely to last for some days and will centre on the British Government’s determination to reduce its military commitment east of Suez.

They are expected to begin in Canberra on January 31. New Zealand will be represented by the Minister of Defence (Mr Eyre), who will probably have with him as advisers the Chief of the Defence Staff (Lieu-tenant-General L. W. Thornton) and the Secretary for External Affairs (Mr A. D. McIntosh).

Mr Eyre will face across the conference table Mr Denis Healey, who has the reputation of being a hard-bar-gaining Yorkshireman and a Minister of Defence with £ s d on his mind. His aim is to reduce British defence spending by £220 million a year by 1970. His defence budget this year totalled £2OOO million.

The third seat at the table will be occupied by Senator S. Paltridge, of New South Wales, under whose administration Australian defence expenditure has jumped by £l9O million to about £450 million in three years.

No New Force New Zealand military leaders do not expect Mr Healey to propose, as has been suggested, the establishment of a new Anglo-A.N.Z.U.S. peacekeeping force as an alternative to present defence arrangements. They believe he is more likely to suggest that New Zealand and Australia should pay more towards the cost of maintaining the Singapore base or that they should be prepared to place more men and equipment in the area as substitutes for forces the British would like to withdraw Mr Healey will fly to Canberra immediately he has completed discussions in Washington with the United States Secretary of Defence (Mr McNamara). Officjals believe he may seek an assurance from the United States that it does not

envisage asking in the near future for additional New Zealand and Australian troops in Vietnam. They consider that if such an assurance is received Mr Healey can be expected to argue in blunt terms that the Anzac nations cannot expect Britain to carry such a heavy load for Anzac defence.

Ready By 1970 Military leaders believe Mr Eyre will reply that at present the nation’s defence resources are stretched to the limit but that by 1970 New Zealand would be in a far better position to step up its contribution. He is considered likely to say that the recently completed defence review, containing recommendations for services’ re-equipment over the next five years, is aimed at placing the services in a much better position to do so. Defence authorities say the review was based on the premise that the services’ needs during the period to 1975 would essentially be for equipment to be used overseas, not stationed semi-perm-anently at bases in New Zealand. Mr Healey’s oftenstated aims were kept, it is said, well in mind.

Review Of Needs For the first time also, according to reports, the review sets out a year-by-year financial need for each service, based on the progressive acquisition of equipment. Navy requirements in the period to 1971 are said to be at least the purchase of one more frigate and the placement of an order for another The acquisition of two minesweepers is believed to be mentioned.

The Air Force hopes for three more Hercules transport aircraft, at least one squadron of supersonic strike aircraft and more modern jet trainers,

Tanks, more support helicopters and more artillery weapons are reported to be on the Army’s shopping list. Senior officers in the three services are awaiting the Government’s verdict on the recommendations. Their anxiety has increased in recent weeks since reports suggested the Government did not intend next year to increase the defence budget above its present level of £4O million. They feel confident, however, that should it at least adopt the majority of the recommendations in full before Mr Eyre travels to Canberra he will be able to attend the talks with some degree of confidence. On a phasing basis of withdrawal of some British units, the recommended re-equip-ment plan would permit New Zealand to take up at least a portion of the slack.

Specialist Units

This could be' in the area of specialist support units, consisting of artillerymen, engineers or signals operators. The Air Force could also play some part by increasing its transport and strike aircraft commitments as new equipment came to hand. Offers along these lines would give some basis for continued discussions, officials feel. They would also perhaps take the edge off the expected blunt talking from Mr Healey. There is little doubt in military circles that without some increased form of selective military service to the level of Australia, where youths balloted serve two years in the forces and are liable for 12 months’ oversease service, the Army could not step up its infantry contribution. Thus Mr Eyre is expected to argue that if Britain wants to withdraw large bodies of men she should look to Australia or the United States for replacements, not to New Zealand.