Soviet presence in the Pacific

Press, 2 March 1984, Page 14

Soviet presence in the Pacific

Sir,—National Party members and supporters should check the record of American and Soviet naval expansion over the last 25 years before accepting Mr Thomson’s simplistic interpretation of super-Power strategy. Soviet naval expansion into the South Pacific is predictable, and has been since 1975 when war hawks in the United States were gloating over the nuclear strike capability of the planned Trident submarine. One frightening claim at that time was that the missile fire power of six Tridents tucked under the Antarctic ice floes, sheltered behind remote atolls and nestled in lonely fiords could obliterate every Soviet and Chinese centre of population within two hours. The first two Tridents began active service two years ago. Just how crowded our waters will become with shadowing Soviet hunter-killer submarines will probably depend on how long it takes the people of New Zealand to achieve with our neighbours a nuclear-free South Pacific.—Yours, etc JAMIE LUCK, International spokesperson, Values Party. February 27, 1984.

Sir,—E. F. Spencer (February 29) merely echoes the Soviet threat myth, given yet another rendition recently by the Attorney-General. Russia’s influence is supposedly growing because it now has two bases in Vietnam and more ships in the Pacific. Mr McLay did not say who built those bases — the Americans — and this criminal folly is now used by them and some of our sycophantic politicians as another red bogy. The defeat of Japan in 1945 enabled America to extend its political, economic and military power in the Pacific — adding to the possessions it grabbed from Spain late last century — the Philippines, Guam, the Marshall and Caroline Islands and the Marianas. America’s invasion of the Philippines in 1898-99 cost 50,000 Filipinos their lives. What was seized by force then is now controlled or acquired by economic and military stealth, always excused as defending freedom or responding to a growing Soviet threat.—Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. February 29, 1984.

Sir, — E. F. Spencer talks of “belly-up appeasement” and New Zealand neutrality and disarmament being trendy. The trend I would hope the latter two would set would be for human survival and commonsense prevailing over warmongering. As a neutral peace zone, New Zealand would be of far more use to the world than as a pawn in the war games of the big Powers. N. W. Milanovich’s comments on the peaceful conciliatory influence New Zealand could have made good sense. Mankind needs a whole new frame of thinking if this planet is to survive. — Yours, etc., JILL WILCOX. February 29, 1984.

Sir—The Minister of Defence, Mr Thomson, is reported as saying nuclear war between the great Powers must never happen, and that so long as each believes the other has the capacity to inflict intolerable damage neither will start it. The Minister surely cannot be ignorant of the Pentagon mili-

tary doctrine that nuclear war can be limited, survived and won; and that it is pressing ahead with plans for nuclear war against the Soviet Union. Membership of A.N.Z.U.S. imposes on the Government the necessity to create a mythology of Soviet threats to justify its aligning this country with United States plans for war. The only Soviet threat arises from United States nuclear-armed warships in our ports. Our Government will not even assert its sovereign right to know if such warships are nucleararmed. For their country’s security, Soviet military leaders must assume that they are.—Yours, etc.,

M. CREEL. February 28, 1984.