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

Press, 15 October 1985, Page 20

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

Sir,—l join Susan Hunt in saluting the generals. When it comes to military matters, informed New Zealanders would rather accept the views of “geriatric generals” than puerile politicians who shoot from the lip. Many of these officers would have served the post-war Labour leaders — Fraser, Nash, Rowling and Kirk — and no doubt their judgment and advice were valued by leaders of this calibre and in most cases acted upon. So much for political motive, at least on the part of the generals. The really disturbing aspect is that ships and aircraft of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force would be banned from our ports and airfields and eventually those of Royal Australian and Royal Canadian navies and air forces. Russian submarines in our waters have been confirmed. Will lack of intelligence from our erstwhile allies mitigate against successful surveillance in the future? I fear so. — Yours, etc., M. JOHNSTON. October 12, 1985.

Sir,—J. F. Garvey’s ' letter is typical of Pentagon puppets in New Zealand. Accusing Mr Lange of infantile remarks, he himself is like a little boy crying because he imagines the bogymen are coming to get him. It is proven by America that A.N.Z.U.S. is not an equal partnership, but a military dictatorship ruled by the Pentagon. Why should New Zealand remain tied to a country preaching democracy and individual freedom but practising fascism with, “do as we say, or else?” J. F. Garvey should realise that the only countries ever to threaten the independence of New Zealand are France and America, and all the generals that ever lived cannot alter that fact. We are a young, virile country, quite capable of influencing world affairs, without staying attached to a dictatorial, immoral, nuclear alliance. Until Americans themselves spontaneously offer to cut their own nuclear arsenal by 50 per cent they have not got a moral leg to stand on. — Yours, etc., ARTHUR MAY. October 14, 1985.

Sir,—Philip Ellis (October 11) repeats the pernicious myth “the West’s possession of the bomb” saved us from “fighting another bloody war, around 1946-47 with a world-hungry Russia.” What a delusion. Russia was then just beginning to recover from four years of the most ghastly battles in history, having just survived 20 million dead, six million homes and buildings razed and 70 per cent of its industrial base and agriculture destroyed. More war was the very last thing they wanted. Forty years later, Mr Ellis says Russia is definitely still the enemy. He should ponder the fact that Russia has never invaded Western Europe or the Pacific area, but within the last 100 years Britain, France, Germany, Japan and America have all invaded Russia and many parts of the Pacific too. Our real enemy is ignorance and deliberately fostered fear — a recipe for disaster in this nuclear age. — Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. October 12, 1985.

Sir, — One should be wary of analyses by ex-officers who are trained to solve problems by direct military means. Those writing in support of the former chiefs of staff should ask: 1. Why have Australian defence planners stated there is “no foreseeable threat to New Zealand”? 2. Why do these planners (and other “experts”) doubt that America would come to our aid un&tf A.N.Z.U.S.? 3. Why are we mislea about the “safety” of

nuclear vessels? (Five nuclear submarines lost, one sunk in San Francisco harbour, and U.S. Navy crews unable to meet safety standards.) 4. Why do the ex-chiefs base their thinking on deterrence,, when all current American emphasis is on effective use of nuclear weapons, and when the 1981 United Nations report calls deterrence “a dangerous collective fallacy”? 5. ■Why have allies that attack your harbours, poison your environment (France) and subvert democratic Governments (the United States and Whitlam in Australia)? . — Yours, etc., WARREN THOMSON. October 13, 1985.

Sir,—R. Tait (“The Press,” October 11) resorts, to smear in his criticism of the public concern expressed by the retired military leaders. It is pushing the absurd to align these retired military leaders with “fascist-minded” elements. There can be none more qualified to comment on defence matters than those who have spent their lives working in this field. R. Tait would do well to realise that among the 17 gentlemen concerned are men who put their necks on the line to fight against fascism and totalitarianism. It is an insult that we are not now prepared to listen to them. If any comparison can be made with the tactics of the Italian

fascists it is of the activities of some of the so-called “peace” activists. — Yours, etc., BILL DALY. Levels, Timaru, October 11, 1985.