Anti-nuclear bill

Press, 3 December 1985, Page 20

Anti-nuclear bill

Sir,—ln all your discussion about a possible end to A.N.Z.U.S., if New Zealand should enact antinuclear weapons legislation (“The Press,” December. 2), you say nothing about the key issue- — the abhorrence of New Zealanders for nuclear weapons and the immorality of dependence on such weapons: A.N.Z.U.S. was not conceived as a nuclear pact. It is the United States which has threatened to end A.N.Z.U.S., not New Zealand. You point out that the U.S.A. is in an assertive mood. Quite true, but the present hawkish administration will not be there for ever. A Democrat Administration is likely to be more favourably inclined towards us. Even the Reagan Administration (though divided in its views, apparently) is being more conciliatory towards Russia. Punishment of New Zealand is hardly consistent with that. The one sensible thing which you say is that New Zealand is not strategically placed. Why then do we need nuclear weapons to defend us? — Yours, etc.,

COLIN BURROWS. December 2, 1985.

Sir.-r Hilary Eccles (“The Press,” November 29) accuses Mr Lange of ostrich-like behaviour concerning nuclear matters. I would suggest that those who blindly accept current super-Power policy are the true ostriches. They are prepared to ignore the fact that’4o years of arms control talks have brought us massive over-kill capabilities by the two super-Powers and that a continuation of such policy can have an almost inevitable outcome. Further, it is the support provided by satellites such as New Zealand that has helped bring about this awesome situation, where 10 per cent of world population (United States and Sovie£ Union) can threaten the

existence of the remaining 90 per cent Labour’s small effort to bring a change in direction is worth while and is anything but ostrich-like. Hilary Eccles’ reference to the battle of the Coral Sea is significant. Those who have not grasped the significance of Hiroshima will inevitably be thinking in conventional World War II terms.—Yours, etc., PETER STOCKER. November 30, 1985.

Sir,—“l’m afraid people in other countries have no idea how pervasive the anti-nuclear movement is in the United States...As to the nuclear stand of New Zealand, there seems to be great understanding for your position, but especially for your absolute right as a sovereign nation to take a stand different from ours...” I quote from a recent*" letter from America, which includes cuttings from ‘different sources which exemplify the writer’s comments. A country’s moral integrity, particularly in a stand of so much importance to the world, should not be compromised by threats. In this season of peace and good will New Zealand’s stand for sanity should be valued and endorsed by all of us — Yours, etc.,

JILL WILCOX. December 2, 1985.

Sir,—Hundreds of thousands of Australians support New Zealand’s stand in banning nuclear warships from your ports. We applaud your assertiveness in rejecting defence by nuclear weapons. We agree with your interpretation of the A.N.Z.U.S. treaty — that it does not commit any of the partners to nuclear involvement. What your Government is now doing, by enshrining the nuclear ban into national legislation, is essential as confirmation of your firm stand away from the insanity of the nuclear arms race. We wish you continued strength as that legislation comes before your Parliament. Many of us wish that our Government had been more supportive of yours as it dared to challenge an important nuclear ally. We also wish that Australia would follow New Zealand’s lead, and we are working towards that result. You may also like to know that peace movement people are recommending buying .New Zealand products. — Yours, etc., JO VALLENTINE, The Senate Canberra, A.C.T. November 28, 1985. h

Sir,—Your latest A.N.Z.U.S. editorial is a tirade of wild guesses based on fallacious premises, including: “Neither New Zealand nor the United States has any right to bring A.N.Z.U.S. to an end while Australia wants it to continue.” Article 10 of the treaty specifically provides for unilateral withdrawal. If we withdraw, the treaty would then remain in force between Australia and America. Given that we and America have irreconcilably different views on A.N.Z.U.S., it becomes ipso facto a nullity. Given also that America’s prime concern is not Australasian defence, but the spreading of the “Kiwi disease” to N.A.T.0., Mr Lange and Mr Solarz are far from mistaken in suggesting that the freaking of A.N.Z.U.S.

between us and America-would lead to better relations. The problem is that America cannot withdraw without breaking with Australia, and our present policy is to stay put. A negotiated withdrawal by New Zealand is therefore the best solution. — Yours, etc., D. J. O’ROURKE. December 2, 1985.