Officers and A.N.Z.U.S.

Press, 11 October 1985, Page 10

Officers and A.N.Z.U.S.

Sir,—lt is not often that the public has the opportunity to study top-level military thinking, sqjfon-

gratulations to the 16 retired military chiefs for publicising their views on nuclear issues and A.N.Z.U.S. Starting from their belief that a military alliance is a good thing, they have proved that we should have one. But alas, these gentlemen seem unaware of even the basic arguments in favour of banning nuclear weapons from New Zealand, and against their own traditional assumptions. There are now enough nuclear warheads to target every airfield, port and city in the world. The detonation of even part of this arsenal could destroy the whole human race. Nuclear weapons provide no defence. And if someone should lead the way out of all this, why not New Zealand? Think again, generals. Dependence on military alliances and “strategic counterpoise” is obsolete. The time is 1985, not 1945. — Yours, etc., H. C. EVISON. October 9, 1985.

Sir,—You devote a lot of space in “The Press” to the views of a few retired officers who are all members of the same club with their United States counterparts whose insane demand for more and more nuclear weapons has brought the world to the brink of destruction. It takes nearly a full page of waffle to repeat the same old arguments and veiled threats of a supposed enemy lurking over the horizon plus generous helpings of the United States military industrial complex propaganda we get all the time to justify the whole business. Let’s face it — if the United States accepted the present Russian offer on arms reduction, Wall Street would collapse overnight. — Yours, etc., E. L. BARCLAY. October 9, 1985.

Sir,—l was totally unimpressed by Mr Lange’s statement in reply to the concern about A.N.Z.U.S., shown by our retired military officers, and probably concern shared by quite a few who are not retired. It was said that he was angiy and contemptuous. Surely, holding the office of our leader, he ought to be able to restrain himself from outbursts of temper, and not call people who are genuine about our defence situation geriatrics. If there had been a warning signed and delivered by the younger generation, what would Mr Lange name them? Or would it have been just thrown to the side? — Yours, etc., V. CROZIER. October 10, 1985.

Sir,—The foundations of security for New Zealand are the answers to such questions as who are its present, and likely future enemies, and whether their enmity is unavoidable, what form hostile action is likely to take, and which of our interests is likely to be injured. The retired officers’ attitude is that Russia is a likely enemy and that New Zealand will have acceptable security only by continuing during peace-time the active military co-operation developed with the. United States and

Australia during World War 11. Many of us are unsure of this. The A.N.Z.U.S. treaty requires much less. It is to be hoped the Government will have a public defence review in which there are submissions on who our enemies are and why, whether it is wise to take sides in the East-West antagonism, or try to play a part in reducing the antagonism and the arms race, and pursue a positive neutrality. — Yours, etc., NORMAN ROBERTS. October 10, 1985.

Sir—“ Geriatric generals” — what an insult. So that our world might be safe from Germany and Japan, those same generals offered their lives, as did thousands of others, many of whom did not survive. Had it not been for the West’s possession of the “bomb,” we and our “late” allies would almost certainly around 1946-47 have been fighting another bloody war, this time with a world-hungry Russia. Our Prime Minister, follows the path of a weak, gullible Chamberlain, who was conned into a false sense of security by Hitler by also courting the enemy. Make no error — Russia is still the enemy and this crazy path of pacifism (so-called) can only lay us open to destruction. — Yours, etc., PHILIP ELLIS. October 9, 1985.

Sir,—Throughout their long rehash of the fallacies of “deterrence,” the retired military men seem unaware that they are shooting down their own claim of not being politically motivated. Their political motive is to bring pressure on the Government to back down on the ship ban legislation. The claim that there is no alternative to A.N.Z.U.S. is also political, based as it is on the “Soviet threat” myth. There is another political aspect to this move by military men that should be treated seriously: namely the prospect of putsch politics developing in New Zealand. Their basic support of Reagan policies is shared by the fascist-minded element in the New Zealand version of the moral majority. Military men, retired or not, have no immunity from use by fascist elements, even in New Zealand. — Yours, etc., R. TATE. October 9, 1985.

Sir,—The policy of banning nuclear warships from our ports is the democraticallyexpressed will of the majority of the New Zealand people, which the Reagan Administration chooses to challenge and flout with contemptuous arrogance, subjecting us to bullying intimidation revealing the veneer-thin superficiality of its professed friendly feelings for New Zealanders. If the Reagan Administration chooses to consider the New Zealand ban as ending A.N.Z.U.S., that is their problem. Either the people of New Zealand assert their nationhood by exercising their sovereign right to determine this country’s foreign policy or it sinks to the status of a mere “crayfish-tail” republic, a virtual subject colonial appendage of the United States. By their

statement, the 17 retired senior military officers have chosen to align themselves with the Reagan Administration against the majority of their fellow countrymen. — Yours, etc., M. CREEL. October 10, 1985.

Sir,—The retired officers who have put their view on the nuclear ships issue say that New Zealand’s symbolic stand is “not worth the candle.” Would the Soviets be offering a 50 per cent reduction in nuclear arms if no such symbolic actions had occurred where countries in the Western alliance have responded to the information and perspectives of their peace movements? We may be reaching a turning point in the arms race. Or else a new, more threatening and economically ruinous phase is about to begin, led as always by the United States. Our retired officers illustrate afresh how the nuclear madness is a legacy of the war. Their memories blind them to how arrogant and dangerous our allies have become and deafen them to our alleged enemy’s calls for peace. — Yours, etc., ‘ ARTHUR WELLS. October 9, 1985.

Sir,—The former chiefs of staff of the New Zealand armed forces express an unrealistic faith in disarmament negotiations. Approximately 30 years of talks have not resulted in the dismantling of even one nuclear weapon. These retired officers acknowledge that there is no likelihood of a threat of invasion of New Zealand, yet fail to acknowledge the immense proliferation of nuclear weapons which have increased the opportunities of an outbreak of nuclear war. Other military men, in particular. Admiral Gene La Rocque (retired) who has commanded nuclear weapons and has taken part in

strategic planning in the Pentagon, are quick to point out that nuclear war is inevitable unless some move towards solving the nuclear impasse is made. Admiral La Rocque condones New Zealand’s nuclear warship ban and I, along with the majority of New Zealanders, support the Labour Government’s stand. — Yours, etc., JUNE RIDLEY. October 9, 1985.

Sir,—ln 1976 it was estimated that $l7 billion was spent on arms every two weeks, which was sufficient to provide food, water, education, health and housing for everyone around the world. In 1984 that $l7 billion was spent on arms every three and a half days. Knowing these things, I am not disposed to listen kindly to the militaristic stance of some of our retired war leaders, although I am heartened to hear spokesmen from the generals for peace — generals, along with doctors, engineers and scientists -who are speaking out for peace and working for it in their own organisations. New Zealand may be small but it is giving heart to a tired and battered world with its anti-nuclear stand. May that flame of hope never be doused. — Yours, etc., JILL WILCOX. October 10, 1985.