Russian moves in Afghanistan

Press, 8 January 1980, Page 12

Russian moves in Afghanistan

Sir, — ■ Surely Ar. C. Grant’s request (January 5) albeit implied, that' the F.O.L. take action over the Russian interference in Afghanistan is misdirected. Should such a request not be referred to. the Government?, At present, or should one say, for the time being, the F.O.L. is not the Government and it is for the Government of New Zealand, as our official representative overseas, and not our unions, to decide what New Zealand’s approach will be here. Two very different countries, America and China, allow their respective governments to decide on this issue so why; cannot we allow our Government and

not our unions to decide our international, policy for us? — Yours, etc., M. G. DOLLIMORE. January 7, 1980.

Sir, — Thoughtful map readers appreciate that South Africa’s strategic seaports are vital to the free world’s shipping. Russia’s African and Afghanistan forays prompt this letter. Hark to words of the Soviet, Naval Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Gorshkov, a decade ago, quoted in “South African News ■ and Views.” “The Soviet Navy has been converted in the full sense of the word into an offensive type of long range force which could exert a decisive influence on the course of an armed struggle in theatres of military operations of a vast extent, and which is able to support State interests at sea in peace-time. The disruption of ocean lines of communications, the special arteries that feed military an economic potentials of those countries, (‘the aggressive Imperialist countries’) has continued to be one of the fleet’s missions.” Let’s hear both sides. Why crucify South Africa? — Yours, etc., JOHN LESLIE. January 4, 1980.

Sir, — People living in a democratic society such as we have in New Zealand enjoy many privileges, paramount of these being freedom to express.' our own chosen political beliefs. In enjoying this freedom, however, there is also a requirement of loyalty to our country. Your correspondent, M. Creel, from his own admissions and from his very frequent extolling of • communism,- ■ through your columns makes it very cleat; he has no accord with .

our democratic society. In his letter (January 3) he says that President Carter has made an “unscrupulous distortion of facts” when referring to the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia. What drivel will he next expect your readers to accept? — Yours, etc., E. R. GRANT. December 7, 1979. Sir, — as a member of a trade union affiliated to' the Federation of Labour, A. C. Grant, (January 5) fails in class-conscious understanding of. the situations in Chile and Afghanistan. There is a depressing similarity in the situations in Chile before September, 1973, and Afghanistan since the People’s Democratic Party deposed the autocratic, feudal regime of Daoud Shah in April, 1978. In Chile, President Allende faced active hostility from powerful domestic and foreign, principally the United States, class enemies. The result is history. Since April, 1978, the . Afghan revolution has been constantly attacked, ideologically, by Western propaganda agencies, militarily, by counter-revolutionary sympathisers of the dispossessed ruling class, armed and financed by the United States, China, and Pakistan. A cyclonic storm of chagrined, sanctimonious humbug 'is raging around the defeat of a conspiracy to establish a state, of necessity fascist, on the Soviet Union’s southern border. — Yours, etc., M. CREEL, January 6, 1980. Sir, —The cynical Russian excuse for invading Afghanistan is exactly :the same as America used to invade and devastate Vietnam —- an alleged call for military help

from a “legitimate Government.” We rightly condemn the wicked Reds, but in the 1960 s and 70s our newspapers and the National Government and Prime Ministers accepted, approved and repeated the United States Vietnam excuse as if it was gospel. President Carter’s moral outrage and retaliatory moves against Russia have a very strong flavour of hypocrisy, and appear designed to ensure his re-election in November. Remembering the Wests’ muted -response, or guarded approval of Indonesia’s brutal invasion of East Timor in 1975, how can we be so selectively righteous now?— Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. January 6, 1980.