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

Press, 14 October 1985, Page 12

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

Sir,—Many of your regular correspondents on the A.N.Z.U.S. issue dismissed the thorough analysis of the former Chiefs of Staff as being out of step with the times. These correspondents conveniently forget that the majority of the ex-chiefs held their posts comparatively recently and are thus fully informed on New Zealand’s defence and foreign policy. Indeed, to have achieved their previous appointments they had to serve over 30 years in their service, and attend several prestigious international defence colleges. This vast experience and education makes the exchiefs superbly qualified to offer rational and informed comment on the Government’s policy. I would be very surprised if any of your rather emotive correspondents on the A.N.Z.U.S. issue can claim an equivalent education or experience in the defence and foreign affairs fields. I therefore question their competence to offer reasonable comment on the issue.—Yours, etc., A. M. TURNER. October 11, 1985.

Sir,—Given their age and background the service chiefs’ report . was predictable, their motives honest and sincere. Pre-1945 I would have had no criticism. Naturally our present policy has its dangers, but we run a greater risk of annihilation through adhering to a military alliance (and alliances have always brought wars) than by backing our peaceful assertions with deeds, as we are doing. As we are uniquely situated geographically, it is our duty to add our moral weight to rising demands that global madness be ended. My opinions have been ably voiced by others, but I will comment on the chiefs’ selective history. “No general war for 40 years” — there was none between 1815 and 1914; yet it happened — twice. “France, invaded many times, needs a nuclear deterrent.” (Muldoon.) What about Russia? Nor does history offer any guideline on how to deal with the one weapon which threatens all life. Deterrence can only be a stopgap. *- Yours, etc., VERNON WILKINSON. October 12, 1985.