A.N.Z.U.S. Pact

Press, 26 May 1984, Page 18

A.N.Z.U.S. Pact

Sir, — I point out to T. R. Loudon that there are two superpowers, not one, seeking the No. 1 position in the world. The fact that the Soviet Union has already invested heavily and lost much ground in China, Egypt, Indonesia, etc., makes it highly unlikely that it would venture down this way unless it fought and “won” a nuclear war first. For the rest, I think the idea of a sister-city relationship with a Russian city such as Irkutsk, to match our present relationship with Seattle in the United States, is an excellent one. However, the first thing to do is to sound out the Soviet Embassy. — Yours, etc., VERNON WILKINSON. May 22, 1984. Sir,—Diane Lawry-Anderson (May 18) accuses me of seeing world politics in the absolute terms of “goodies and baddies.” I do see the East-West struggle in terms of good and evil, but I realise that neither side are saints. I reason that corruption in the communist bloc nations is more persuasive than it is in the West. The Western world was the birthplace of Magna Carta, English common law, and the American Constitution. These cornerstones of freedom have enabled Western nations to become the most free and progressive countries. Russia, for example, has lived under continuous dictatorship for 1000 years. Russians have had no practical experience of the “individual before the State” philosophy, and consequently human rights there are a bad joke. Western nations, for all their faults, are still morally, politically and economically far superior to the spiritu-ally-impoverished nations of the communist bloc. — Yours, etc., T. R. LOUDON. May 19, 1984. Sir,—T. K. R. Loudon (May 21), says that the Soviet Union has the goal of being number one superpower and will use the antiA.N.Z.U.S. movement to achieve that. He then seems to get worried about New Zealand being drawn into non-aggression pacts with the

Soviets once they have broken our links with the United States. I see nothing wrong with non-aggression pacts, but fully neutral States would not need such agreements. Neutrality implies that you are aloof from both mutual defence pacts and non-aggression pacts. A truly neutral New Zealand, out of A.N.Z.U.S., could have a useful part to play in mediation between conflicting nations. — Yours, etc., TED HICKS. May 22, 1984. Sir,—l would be interested to hear Diane Lawry-Anderson’s response to this question — would she prefer to be confronted by St Francis of Assisi in whose possession reposed the only nuclear device in the world, or would she be happier to front up to Ghengis Khan brandishing a battleaxe? I ask the question because she would have me believe that the conception of “goodies and baddies” went out with the advent of the nuclear age, and that only that inanimate object, the nuclear weapon, “is the real enemy ... that threatens to destroy us all.” I submit that the real enemy of mankind remains as it has always been, mankind. Whether by acquisitive war, or aggressive advancement of idealism, the end result too often is the visitation of misery. The remedy is clear enough, and has been expounded often enough. Unfortunately, the success of the remedy requires that I do something — that I change. And I do not. Neither, alas, do many others.— Yours, etc., J. V. PIERSON. May 18, 1984. Sir,—Mr Cooper’s pledge of his party’s “strong commitment to the cause of disarmament” (“The Press,” May 23) is most welcome. This will be a desirable change from a party which has, until now, supported the Reagan Administration’s dramatic increase in armaments. It is pleasing to note that Mr Cooper’s party now has no difficulty with the concept of a nuclear weapons-free zone. If the energy he applies to looking for difficulties could be directed to-

wards implementation, then the zone could become more than just a concept. I am sure that genuine support for the proposal would be more valuable than his announced support for a “nuclear freeze.” The provisions of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, if honoured by signatories, would preclude the need for any such new initiatives. Mr Cooper’s party has failed as a signatory by allowing nuclear weapons in our ports.—Yours, etc., PETER STOCKER. May 23, 1984. Sir, — The applause by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Cooper, for the anti-nuclear stance is another example of Government “sucker tucker,” (“The Press” May 23). Mr Cooper rightly states that nuclear war is suicidal, but continues to back A.N.Z.U.S. even though there is now overwhelming evidence that America is deliberately planning to fight, “win,” and "survive” a nuclear war. Mr Cooper blithely reassures us we are not a nuclear target, and even claims that an American warship would not make us a target in a nuclear war. Apparently we should not interpret our Minister of Defence’s previous warning about “spears” shining in the sun to mean Russian nuclear missiles (“The Press,” February 27). Finally, Mr Cooper expresses trust in the word of “the Soviet authorities themselves.” Coming from a Government which promotes a Soviet threat, this is absolutely hilarious — the ultimate absurdity. — Yours, etc. D K. SMALL. May 23, 1984.