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

Press, 14 October 1985, Page 12

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

Sir,—There are always opposing views about any issue of political importance, and all points of a matter should be open to discussion in a civilised manner. It is a pity, therefore, that the 17 officers, after a polite and apparently politically unbiased presentation of their collective opinion, should be exposed to derogatory remarks and rude name-calling by Mr David Lange. The subject of this letter is not whether they are right or wrong, but of manners and restraint. The country has reached a sorry state when citizens cannot submit their views without being subjected to personal insults by the Prime Minister.—Yours, etc., SUSAN KENNARD. October 11, 1985.

Sir,—The entry of the senior officers into the defence debate is timely. For too long the New Zealand public has been left largely in ignorance of the issues at stake and this is confirmed by the unofficial polls returning a proA.N.Z.U.S., but anti-nuclear-snips vote. A contradiction in itself. What the senior officers do not consider in detail is the need for a joint New Zealand-Australian approach to defence matters, although this can be inferred from their assertion that the need to maintain A.N.Z.U.S. should be paramount. Alliances are not to be taken lightly and while the debate has been couched in New Zealand v. United States terms it seems high time that the public were made aware that what the New Zealand Government is proposing would in effect ditch our Australian allies as well as the United States. So much for a strategy for regional defence.—Yours, etc., M. GREENE. October 11, 1985.

Sir,—How much longer must we suffer the platitudes of the Prime Minister in lieu of the factual realities the remainder of the country must face daily? To now glibly state the arrogantly dubbed “geriatric generals” as having sidelined themselves from partaking in the Government’s planned defence review formalities, prompts one to remind Mr Lange that because of the policies he espouses, we have no defence to review. The concerned and experienced "generals” have surely won by default. Will, however, other issues be won? For example: Farmers, by slaughtering their stock, homeowners being murdered by high interest rates, exporters being strangled by battling an unshackled dollar, and employers being held to ransom by union demands. Without the smokescreen of rugby tours and Rainbow Warriors, the true and painful issues begin to emerge. Are we not reminded of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned?—Yours, etc., WILLIAM RICHARDSON. October 10, 1985.

Sir,—Mr Lange’s infantile remarks about 17 former service chiefs does only harm to his own argument. The Government has got itself into an impossible position on its nuclear stance and ; the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance. The fact that 17 former service chiefs have spoken out reflects the extent of their concern at the run-down of our defence arrangements. Their experience of real war fare recognises the futility of the Government’s “blowing up bridges” policy and the scrapping of A.N.Z.U.S. The Government’s ill-considered handling, of defence policies has got us off-side with our traditional allies and its now proposed defence review will be seen as a propaganda exercise designed primarily to get the Government off the hook.— Yours, etc., J. F. GARVEY. October 11, 1985.