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

Press, 29 August 1984, Page 16

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

Sir, — In supporting Isabella C. Brown, I point out that defenceless New Zealand subconsciously relies on Australia, itself only partially capable of her own defence, as our main protective barrier. Once again Japan is rearming, urged to do so by the United States, and Indonesia is desperate over her surplus millions. A Swizterland of the south role for New Zealand would create a fool’s paradise, as Australia is well aware, for that country has the military jitters regarding her weakness vis-a-vis a not impossible Asiatic threat. Hence our best national safety insurance for the future would be as a willing and active military ally of Australia — where Australia goes we go. I would point out that the everlasting so-called Soviet threat has no factual existence, but is monstrously and maliciously used as propaganda against the world-wide advance of socialism. Let us look at geographical and population realities nearer home. — Yours, etc., W. J. COLLINS. August 26, 1984.

Sir,—l was pleased to see Stuart McMillan’s A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty article (August 3). Although the reasons New Zealand went into the treaty after World War II are understandable, world circumstances have changed to the point where belonging to A.N.Z.U.S. now is dangerous. Under article 5, “an armed attack on any of the three countries” (which must be acted on by other members) “wouM be deemed to include” an attack on

any of the three countries’ “armed forces in the Pacific.” We could be dragged into supporting United States military forces in countries in which they have no right to be. Anyone unaware of the type of corrupt dictator the United States supports in several Third World countries should see the film “Under Fire.” Let us get out of A.N.Z.U.S. before we become embroiled in a poor country’s internal problems on the wrong side.— Yours, etc., V. H. NELSON. August 26, 1984.

Sir,—lsabella Brown fears an invasion of New Zealand (August 20 and 25); but, as the world’s most isolated country, New Zealand has less to fear from an invasion than any other country. Even the National Government’s “Defence Review, 1983,” failed to identify a possible invader. If the review does talk darkly about the Soviet Union’s influence in the world, it is simply not credible to argue that New Zealand is a “rich prize” for the taking. We are relatively poor in resources, except for agricultural produce which we already sell to the Soviets, so it would be ridiculous for the U.S.S.R. to invade us. A former Secretary of Defence, Sir Jack Hunn, has already effectively demolished the invasion threat. The U.S.S.R. lacks the amphibian capacity let alone all the other logistical requirements short of an extravagantly massive operation conducted for trivial ends.— Yours, etc., D. K. SMALL. August 26, 1984.