A.N.Z.U.S. alliance

Press, 8 February 1985, Page 14

A.N.Z.U.S. alliance

Sir, — Mr Doug Kidd, M.P., likens this country’s nuclear-free policy to taking to the lifeboats and no longer having any say over the direction of the ship. If you are only a petty officer, have already served your time honourably and feel that both the ship and the destination have changed radically over 34 years, it may not be a silly idea to take the lifeboats, especially if the ship’s name is the Titanic. It may even cause the ship’s speed to be reduced and the iceberg watch doubled. — Yours, etc., LYALL LUKEY. February 6, 1985.

Sir,—New Zealand’s long proud history of endeavour in world affairs is now obliterated by the smug know-alls whose ignorance points to our total destruction. Is the defence of our highly exposed coastline of less importance than the great trade hoo-ha with China? “Where have all the R.S.A.S gone?” What of the safety and security of the population of this country in the event of war disaster? I have no truck with what emanates from the Pentagon or any other powerful nation, but “better the devil you know than the one you don’t.” With bare significance on the world map we have enjoyed some security in the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance. The silent majority are well aware of the dangers inherent in this nuclear

age. Our enemy will not come from participation in A.N.Z.U.S., but from the huge atomic playground in our Pacific. This is the greatest potential for “hide and seek” enemy tactics — nuclear submarines. Our break from A.N.Z.U.S. must have the U.S.S.R. laughing all the way to our coast. The horizon looks pretty bleak and desolate for the population of New Zealand at this moment. — Yours, etc. M. McKAY. February 6, 1985.

Sir,—Could the writer of “A.N.Z.U.S. blunder goes on” explain how, in a few short months, a mere “rest and recreation” facility has suddenly ballooned into a critical, strategic, tactical, political issue where probable economic blackmail against New Zealand is one of “practical” results thereof? If 4 a small,

Eastern Bloc country showed such national independence against that super-Power, there would be loud applause throughout the West. Paragraphs 9 and 10 have an obvious between-the-lines proAmerican bias unacceptable in any “impartial” discussion on A.N.Z.U.S. If our national selfdetermination and freedom of action is to become subordinate to American and Australian pressures, it might be pertinent to remember that, “Do as we say, or else” were the tactics of the Fascists back in 1939, and the root cause of 60 million horrific deaths. The greatest A.N.Z.U.S. “blunder” was that New Zealand was ever coerced into such a big-stick alliance in the first place. — Yours, etc.,

ARTHUR MAY. February 4, 1985.

Sir,—ln his letter to Mr Lange, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said: “(Australia) could not accept as a permanent arrangement that the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance had a different meaning and entailed different obligations for different members.” The Labour Government stance on the use of our port facilities is clearly at odds with that of the other two A.N.Z.U.S. members, yet that stance is applauded by critics of your well-reasoned editorial comments on the matter as “consistent” with the Government’s principles. I suggest as a matter of logic as well as principle that the Government should withdraw from the alliance immediately. Mr Lange has announced it will not do so. Faced with the fact that the only scientific survey of opinion on the issue (the Heylen poll), has shown that a clear majority of New Zealanders favour continued port access to nuclear-propelled ships of our A.N.Z.U.S. partners, I suggest that the Government has again demonstrated that it is prepared to sacrifice principle on the altar of political expediency. — Yours, etc.,

K. J. JONES. February 6, 1985.

Sir,—Your leading article on February 4 lashes out wildly and supports having nuclear weapons in New Zealand with inconsistent arguments. You rightly observe that A.N.Z.U.S. “specifies nothing about ship visits, or for that matter, anything certain about defence commitments.” It requires only that the parties consult together if one is under threat: the Americans had resisted Australian pressure for firmer commitments. You apparently can now discern a hidden message requiring us to host nuclear warships. Your remarks about “the so-called peace movement” are unworthy of you and suggest insensitivity to widespread fears that our civilisation could end in an entirely-preventable nuclear holocaust. In this debate you behave like a non-swimmer, out of his depth and thrashing around for something to clutch. It surely could not be that you are trying to obscure the real, simple issue. — Yours, etc., LLOYD FRANKLIN. Nelson, February 4, 1985. y