Gleneagles Agreement

Press, 31 October 1981, Page 14

Gleneagles Agreement

Sir.—People are surely fed up with this subject but I must answer P. A. Rooney (October 24) accusing the New Zealand Rugby Union of causing sporting boycotts by inviting the Springbok tourists. Apartheid opposes- Christian principles. Therefore, your correspondent has my full support in that direction. It is not correct, however, to state that the Rugby Union is responsible for the situation which has deveb oped. The entire blame should be levelled at Mr Muldoon as he alone had the power to say “yes” or “no" to the tour but failed to prevent it, then allowed it to continue when violence increased with police action causing stress and fear everywhere. He knew very well this would occur but preferred it rather than losing votes in election year. The Gleneagles Agreement is so ambiguous it may be interpreted in several ways and whatever Mr Muldoon or anyone else may say in defence he presented a gutless attitude.— Yours, etc.,

J. H. DAWSON October 27, 1981.

Sir,—M. Creel quotes out of context. The plain fact is that the signatories agreed to combat apartheid and sporting contacts with South Africa by persuasion and discouragement. This did not work out as well as they had expected, but out of Gleneagles came significantly in our embittered and embattled world not only the condemnation of apartheid and of sporting contacts with South Africa in the preamble to the agreement, but also, in the nonprohibitive operative clause, the residual right of freedom of choice to the peoples of those countries represented in which this freedom still existed. The statement "Muldoon no! Gleneagles yes!” is nonsensical because Mr Muldoon has consistently supported the agreement and opposed apartheid and the tour of the Springboks. —

Yours, etc., JOHN BARCLAY. October 29, 1981.