The A.N.Z.U.S. debate

Press, 16 August 1984, Page 20

The A.N.Z.U.S. debate

Sir,—R. N. Kennaway omitted to mention the increasingly important role of peace groups and individuals in bringing about "Changing views of A.N.Z.U.S.” (August 13). Political parties did not so much initiate the new policies, but pick up and develop new policies based on the educational efforts of concerned people. It was not 60 per cent, but over 63 per cent of New Zealanders who voted for parties which favoured banning nuclear ship visits. They also voted for parties pledging to declare New Zealand a nuclear-weapon-free zone, which Mr Kennaway did not mention. Opponents of A.N.Z.U.S. do not see it as just a “hindrance to security.” It is seen more as an extremely dangerous threat, making New Zealand a target in a nuclear conflict, making us enemies and distorting our vision of the real world, there are initiatives New Zealand can take internationally for peace. — Yours, etc ” LARRY ROSS, Secretary, N.Z. Nuclear Free Zone Committee. August 13, 1984.

Sir—Richard Kennaway, in his discussion of changing views of A.N.Z.U.S. (August 13). does not put one important facet* of the argument plainly. At present we are not threatened militarily by any other nation and no threat can be foreseen. As Sir Jack Hunn has suggested, we could withdraw from the

military alliance without endangering ourselves. In fact the great danger to the nations of the world, friends and enemies of the United States alike, is the belligerent way in which the Americans have escalated the nuclear arms race. Richard Kennaway presents, as alternatives, the views that from within A.N.Z.U.S. we could use “constructive leverage” to help to solve global problems; or we can ban nuclear ship visits and work for a nuclear-free Pacific. These two approaches are not necessarily incompatible. We should use whatever influence we can bring to bear to try to persuade the Americans to take a saner attitude to nuclear disarmament. — Yours, etc., COLIN BURROWS. August 13, 1984.