Anti-nuclear bill

Press, 20 December 1985, Page 16

Anti-nuclear bill

Sir,—Your latest editorial criticising the Government’s antinuclear policy adds little to what you have often stated before. You still do not spell out just who is waiting to attack us and for what reason. In the same edition you print yet another attack (page 31) by the United States State Department on our Government’s antinuclear policy, with thinly veiled threats about trade. The United States is trying very hard to bully us into submission, but if it succeeds, what price the relationship anyway? You ignore this in your obsession over wrongs suffered by the United States. I agree that morally we should not expect to “have our cake and eat it.” Therefore, an anti-nuclear New Zealand should make it clear that we do not want the United States to come to our aid; and conversely, we should feel no obligation to reciprocate. However, it is only under the A.N.Z.U.S. umbrella that such questions would arise. — Yours, etc., W. R. SYKES. December 19, 1985.

Sir,—“The Press” again exhibits its weak grasp of logic and fact on the nuclear issue (December 18). It laments the loss of “a voice in international affairs that full A.N.Z.U.S. membership conferred.” Yet the New Zealand record in the United Nations and elsewhere shows regular subservience to American foreign policy. It is, of course, not surprising that “The Press” confuses subservience with independence since its editorials on A.N.Z.U.S. so often sound like the “Voice of America.” Indeed, “The Press” fails to comprehend its own news since New Zealand’s nuclearfree stance has elicited world-wide attention. There is no obligation under A.N.Z.U.S. for New Zealand to be involved in America’s plans to fight and win a nuclear war. But, amusing]?, “The Press” in its confused fasOon actually finds it “really objectionable” that New

Zealand should not be willing to assist the United States “in a ghastly nuclear war.” — Yours, etc D. K. SMALL. December 18, 1985.

Sir,—To reply to P. R. Simpson (December 17), there are many clear-thinking people at home and abroad who are strongly in support of our anti-nuclear foreign policy. They see it as a step toward the “substantially new way of thinking” that Einstein deemed essential for the survival of human kind. A world-renowned ecologist, Paul Ehrlich, praised our stand, as a step towards world peace, and a great encouragement for many United States scientists. Charlotte Waterlow, who taught global studies in the United States, claims New Zealand is the moral leader of the world at present. Admiral La 'Roque approves. The policy will not be easy to follow, but it is the clear-thinking policy of the future. — Yours, etc., MARIAN LYFTOGT. December 18, 1985.