“Useful idiots”

Press, 13 March 1985, Page 28

“Useful idiots”

Sir,—As one of Helen Garrett’s so-called “useful idiots” who dares to prefer the possibility of communist takeover (heaven forbid!) to that of nuclear extinction, might I be so naive as to remind her that the issue behind David Lange’s brave stance is not refusal of the protection of A.N.Z.U.S., but rejection of the means by which this

protection is being maintained. His clarity of vision which sees the futility of any so-called "defence” by nuclear methods reminds me of the little boy who laughed at the Emperor in his new “clothes.” But then he was probably considered a “useful idiot.” — Yours, etc., P. H. BILLINGS. March 11, 1985. Sir,—Helen Garrett writes of the “useful idiots” who unwittingly help the spread of communism. It is now becoming obvious that just one “useful idiot” is sufficient if he wears the biggest hat in the country. — Yours, etc., (Mrs) M. E. RITCHIE. March 11, 1985.

Sir,—Your answer to Helen Garrett’s question on your policy of freedom of expression on the nuclear issue was timely. It will be of interest to many who took part in the democratic process of council elections, that an elected representative holds such arrogant views. Those who disagree with her, are, in her mind, unable to comprehend the issues, because they are “useful idiots.” It would behove Mrs Garrett to realise that our democracy is based on the representation of the majority viewpoint. That is precisely what the Government is doing on the nuclear issue. We are free to question that viewpoint, but to ridicule the majority while being a part of that democratic process, is to be both hypocritical and imperious. — Yours, etc., R. A. GARBUTT. March 9, 1985.

Sir,—As a “useful idiot” I feel compelled to disagree with Helen Garrett’s and J. F. Gwynne’s letters of March 9 and your rather hysterical editorial of March 6. Mr Lange’s decision to ban nucleararmed or propelled ships from our ports has surely been one of the most positive, cerebral actions in any country during the post-war years. The wide range of benefits that our continued Oedipal loyalty to any mother that will have us does not depend upon any alliance that we have our signature to, but rather on the whims, wishes and wants of that particular wet nurse at that particular time. For most countries now New Zealand is most certainly far from being “irrelevant” and “indifferent” is an illchosen adjective. The duo of Thatcher and Reagan fear not our

size but our stand, while those countries not engaged in the rush to destroy applaud it. — Yours, etc SHARON E. HUNTER. March 11, 1985.