Anti-nuclear bill

Press, 19 December 1985, Page 14

Anti-nuclear bill

Sir,—ls it too much to ask you, after all these months of debate — and now your today’s editorial “New Zealand repels its defence allies” — to come down to earth about A.N.Z.U.S.? “It is clear,” you write, “that A.N.Z.U.S. no longer offers any assurance of security to New Zealand.” Would you please read the treaty once again, and face the fact that it always was (and remains) far from being any “assurance of security to New Zealand?” If you could calmly do that and share your further thinking with your readers, the debate could make some useful headway. Further, you might thereby be lifting the level of a debate which, regrettably, has brought .. ’“The Piles’’ down to branding as “non-

sense,” thrice in the same editorial, views and attitudes with which it disagrees. — Yours, etc., HAROLD EVANS. December 18, .1985.

Sir,—ln answer to Vernon Wilkinson’s questions of December 17: 1, the enemy — communism. 2, The strategy is diversion, lies and undermining the economy. 3, No, because I am sure the Americans no more want a nuclear war than I or any other New Zealander does. 4, One of the most important functions of this enemy is to discredit deterrence, though it is only discredited in the eyes of its supporters. 5, Of course we do not wish to lose our birthright, but we should not cut off our noses to spite our faces. 6, The pressure spoken of is pressure instigated by our leaders, not by the Americans. We must remember "peace at any price is no peace at all.” I think if some of our spokespeople thought before they spoke we would still have friends. — Yours, etc., CLARRIE HAINES. Rangiora, December 17, 1985.

Sir,—D. M. Suter assures us the anti-nuclear legislation will leave us “sans allies, sans defence, sans country, sans everything.” I guess the Soviets, who are having all sorts of problems keeping Afghanistan, are the threat implied. Perhaps they have taken half the world with tanks, but I suggest the Americans have taken the other half with Hollywood and I am not sure what is worse. Allying ourselves to one or the other arouses a negative interest from the snubbed super-Power, and enslaves us to the other. Conventionally the Soviets are no threat to us. Perhaps, however, Mr Suter would fry happily with an American ship in our harbour when the Soviets nuke us. — Yours, etc., P. R. RINSMA. December 16, 1985.

Sir,—Like Britain, New Zealand has a very long coastline. It would be impossible to defend that coastline against invasion, even if anyone wanted to invade and we were aware of that intention. Couple with that the length of supply lines to support an invasion, and we have the best, if not the only, defence in our isolation. History shows that possession of weapons does not prevent or lessen the risk of attack. If the defence ensures the annihilation of the attacked as well as the enemy, it is not much use. The Pentagon has spent the time approaching the recent “peace” talks with Russia in setting up provocative systems, and followed them with more. Its friends are blessed with its deposits of nuclear warheads against the wishes of the indigenous population. A.N.Z.U.S. will only ensure that New Zealand follows suit. We must ensure that we do not offer any excuse to anyone to attack by maintaining friendly relationships with the world.—Yours, etc., (MRS) A. J. FLANAGAN. December 17, 1985. ~

Sir,—lf this bill becomes law people such as Owen Wilkes seeking further guarantees of Mr Lange’s omniscience need have no worry, for no foreign power will give our Prime Minister the opportunity to pontify, much as he would appear to relish the occasion. In spite of all the manoeuvring and rhetoric, the A.N.Z.U.S. pact would be null and void except for the good will of the other partners putting it in abeyance in the hope that reason will prevail over emotion. The oft-quoted statement that our becoming nuclear-free is a step towards is never backed by

any logical explanation for such reasoning. This Government is obviously prepared to let our present partners shoulder all the expense and risk, knowing full well we would not be abandoned by them in the event of any foreign pressure. This legislation is a dangerous exercise of humiliating futility and should be rejected.—Yours, etc., A. K. HAMILTON. Loburn, ' December 17, 1985.

Sir,—Your latest A.N.Z.U.S. editorial is correct only in that the Nuclear Free Zone Bill does dissociate us from the United States, and that neither they nor we could invoke A.N.Z.U.S. after the bill is passed. You are wrong though in implying that this changes anything. The reality is that with or without A.N.Z.U.S. and with or without our nuclear-free zone, the United States would only offer us military support if it was in America’s interests to do so. Further, our voice is no more “a whimper” than it was before. At least we are no longer also wimps to American foreign policy. Your opinion that other countries now have no reason to look favourably

on us for trade is complete nonsense. Ultimately, it is traders who develop trade, pot Governments. American traders, among others, are trading more with us every day. Our action will assist trade everywhere, not hinder it. — Yours, etc., D. J. O’ROURKE. December 18, 1985.

Sir,—lt is more than 40 years ' since a real shooting war started, but our Yank friends stood on the sideline,- reaping the harvest of dollars from those shedding their blood, sweat and tears while they stood alone against the Nazi aggressors. A few years later, two of the great statesmen of the war years met on a battle waggon in the North Atlantic and hammered out the great Atlantic Charter. One of the principal articles was “that the right of self determination be given to all nations.” Has this been amended with the proviso added: “so long as America approves”? Let us stick to our no nukes. — Yours, etc., P. MURRAY. Westport, December 16, 1985.