Nuclear weapons

Press, 16 August 1983, Page 20

Nuclear weapons

Sir,—Last night I attended a meeting organised by the Beckenham Peace Group, to hear the political parties’ policies on peace and nuclear issues. I was disgusted to hear how badly the organisers had been treated by representatives' of the two major parties. Their member of Parliament, John Kirk, simply failed to turn up. No explanation was offered. Fortunately Alister James stepped in at the last minute. The National member, Philip Burdon, had promised the group a written statement. No statement arrived. Through their own efforts, the group managed to get a telephoned statement. Later, an unintelligible telegram arrived. It is not surprising that many at the meeting expressed little faith in our current political system. The Values, Communist and Social Credit parties were represented and proposed real alternatives to present Government and Labour Party policies, such as withdrawal from A.N.Z.U.S. It is obviously time to look at real alternatives to the two-party, look-alike political system.—Yours, etc., JAN ANDREWS. August 11, 1983.

Sir,—l protest against these socalled protesters, who continually jeopardise the security of our nation. Do they really think their short-sighted protests will keep New Zealand neutral in any coming East-West nuclear conflict? Geographically, we are so vulnerable that almost any expansionist nation wishing to sink its. claws into Aotearoa may consider the risk of confrontation with a New Zealand-allied nation well worth the risk. Uncle Sam has been, and still is, our best and closest friend and, whether we like it or not, I still take comfort from the United States nuclear-strike retaliatory capacity, against the daily-growing menace of Soviet naval expansionism. I welcome these sailors who spend months at sea policing our Pacific Ocean in the cause of keeping New Zealand free the way we want it.—Yours, etc., JOE FORD. August 10, 1983. .. Sir,—R. Tate (August 12) Ojconstrues the tone of my letter

as “cynical,” while Jill Wilcox (August 12) similarly misperceives my views as born out of “contentment.” I never implied that the 50,000 signatories were “fools.” Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. While I concur with the plea, “Give peace a chance,” I believe that high-falutin policy theories such as “positive neutrality” should be avoided unless they are firmly linked to the exigencies of foreign policy as dictated by prevailing political and economic circumstances. “Positive neutrality” is implicitly based upon a faulty premise: that New Zealand has outgrown its status as a small State in a big alliance, and therefore is in a position to ensconce itself as a neutral, anti-nuclear power. This is not to say that I am content with New Zealand’s “pawn status” but this is the reality as it stands.—Yours, etc., E. RICHARDS. August 12, 1983.

Sir,—The letter from D. J. O’Rourke (August 12) is a masterly expose of the whole nuclear weapons issue as it affects New Zealand. As your correspondent points out, the person responsible for the presence of the U.S.S. Texas in our harbours is Mr Muldoon himself, and it is pointless to arouse animosity against the crew of the vessel as they are here by invitation. Unlike the Springbok tour diversion for the 1981 General Election, however, the present tactic of our Prime Minister may boomerang, as more and more ordinary citizens realise the utter futility of the nuclear arms race and the leaky A.N.Z.U.S. umbrella. The 50,000signature petition recently presented to Parliament represents only the tip of the iceberg, as new peace groups are forming throughout the country.—Yours, etc.,

R. L. PLUCK. August 12, 1983.