No U.S. Request For N.Z. Troops

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30764, 31 May 1965, Page 8

No U.S. Request For N.Z. Troops

(N.Z. Press Association) HAMILTON. May 30. Neither the United States nor Australia had asked the Government to send troops to South Vietnam, the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said I in Hamilton yesterday. “We have made up our own 'minds.” he said. i Mr Holyoake said the type of contribution to be made byNew Zealand had been discussed with Australia. It had been agreed that Australian infantry, supported by a New Zealand artillery unit, would be the perfect composition of an Anzac force. “I don’t know why people imagine that the Vietnam struggle wholly belongs to America, or that America has brought pressure to bear on New Zealand to send troops there,” he said. “1 can only believe these people have been affected by i communist propaganda. America’s military contribution in South Vietnam is small compared with that of the South Vietnamese people themselves.” Mr Holyoake said that, as a result of the Government’s re-equipment programme. New Zealand has the best artillery available in the world. For this reason, it was the obvious choice for New Zealand’s contribution to be a combined Anzac force. Command And Supply He said command and sup- ■ ply had not yet been decided. i “But it is reasonable to assume at this stage that it will be the same as for the Australian unit.” Arrangements for New Zealand casualties was another matter to be considered. “The feeling is that if there are any casualties they will be extremely light,” he said. Asked whether he felt New Zealand’s image abroad would suffer because of the attitude of the Opposition to the Government’s decision, Mr Holyoake said: “Even after a day’s debate I don’t know what Labour’s stand is. We asked the House to approve the decision to send a battery to South Vietnam. “Labour had no criticism of the selection of the type ‘ of contribution, the only

difference being that Labour stipulated it should be sent under an approved international organisation. “They have, however, refused to say which organisation they mean. They can not deny that there is none outside 5.E.A.T.0., under which our contribution is being made.” , . J Mr Holyoake said he had yet to understand the attitude of the Labour Party. “Their efforts are obviously a farce to satisfy the many conflicting elements which have expressed opposition to any contribution and to capitalise on this opposition,” he said.