N.Z. neutrality policy

Press, 29 August 1984, Page 16

N.Z. neutrality policy

Sir,—The full and excellent report of my paper on positive neutrality (August 27) given at the New Zealand Party’s Canterbury divisional conference left out only one important point. That was my indebtedness to the originators of the concept itself. In a politically non-partisan way, both John Gallagher and Larry Ross, of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Committee, have worked hard to bring this idea to fruition. The former has written a paper from which 1 borrowed heavily. When this delightfully simple yet immensely important idea becomes widely accepted as an alternative to dangerous alliances, we will all be in their debt. — Yours, etc.,

QUENTIN WILSON. August 27, 1984.

Sir, — As a former soldier now living in Australia, I must warn that New Zealand neutrality is a dangerous delusion. A country is netural only as long as other powers allow it to be Sweden and Switzerland both had massive wellarmed forces in the two world wars and both are well-armed now. One hundred and forty-four years ago there was an unarmed, neutral country called Aotearoa. A European sea power took it. The “best” outcome for neutral, unarmed New Zealand is that Australia, being unable to risk an alien power moving into the vacuum, would take over New Zealand would become the seventh state. The “worst” outcome would be an alien power instigating a “liberation movement,” with civil war and big power involvement. Be neutral, but ensure that you have well-armed mobile, air, land and sea forces, and compulsory military service for both sexes. Neutrality is ideal but very expensive. — Yours, etc., MICHAEL B. NICHOLSON. August 27, 1984.