Kampuchean policy

Press, 26 November 1979, Page 18

Kampuchean policy

Sir, — One expects expediency and selective morality from politicians. However, New Zealand’s continued recognition and thus support, of Pol Pot’s regime in Kampuchea must surely call our principles into question. Mr Muldoon attempts to rationalise the situation by stating that we cannot support a Government which has been put in power by a foreign force. Why then did we support Lon Nol in Kampuchea and Ky and Thieu in Vietnam? Should we continue to recognise Idi Amin’s regime in Uganda? I cannot help wondering about the extent to which our growing trade with China, Pol Pot’s major ally, has influenced our decision. We support a regime which we know to have acted in an inhuman manner, so as not to jeopardise our wheat and meat sales'. If we had been selling large quantities of dairy products to Germany in the late 19305, whose side would we have been on? — Yours, etc., R. FINLAY. November 20, 1979. Sir, — I shall answer Barry Stewart’s questions (November 23) for myself, but cannot speak for “the youth of the Western world. “South-East Asia was not “too far to go to fight.” It was just that this particular war, this quick, clean, necessary wise and winnable war, was in my opinion none of those things. SouthEast Asia is “suddenly close enough to get involved in.” It always was, really; but not in such a way that the local residents feel obliged to shoot back at you. and win. “Why change?” Well, if kids are being burnt to death by napalm, certain tactics are used; if kids are starving to death, certain other tactics are used. Posting a letter to the editor, or posting $lO to Corso — it is

up to each of us to do either, both, or nothing. — Yours, etc., ken McAllister. November 23, 1979.