Nuclear stance

Press, 2 June 1986, Page 12

Nuclear stance

Sir,—Attempting an answer to Mrs A. J. Flanagan (May 23) and D. P. K. Rennick (May 28) postulates a usual reflex conservative nightmare: “Vast Soviet forces, mightily armed, in contact (i.e. combat) with American and other allies, a few hundred miles from New Zealand (and Britain).” This hypothesis is enough to chill the blood of any unthinking reader, but has not, I submit, any validity whatsoever and no basis in either fact or history. An unprovoked Soviet attack on Britain or any nation in the vast South Pacific would spell disaster for Russia. Russia has never invaded Western Europe, nor shown any aggressive interest in the Pacific. In contrast, Britain has twice invaded Russia (1854-56 and 191820). America invaded Eastern Russia in 1919 and both Britain and America have in the past seized islands in the Pacific — Britain in Melanesia and Polynesia and America in Hawaii, Guam, the Philippines, Eastern Samoa and the myriad Mariana, Caroline and Marshall island groups. — Yours, etc.,

M. T. MOORE, May 28, 1986.

Sir, —My daily informant on current affairs is “The Press.” This does not mean that I read this to the exclusion of all other publications. Bearing the foregoing in mind, I interpret Lord Whitelaw’s presence in Moscow as a melodramatic gesture of Britain’s supposed independence of the United States for the benefit of British voters. That Mrs Thatcher has always spumed Moscow’s offers of separate arms reduction deals supports the contention that she dare not actually operate independent of Washington. This situation makes the likelihood of “any” member of N.A.T.O. ever acting independent of the United States extremely doubtful. That New Zealand dare stand firm on the nuclear ships issue makes me proud to be a Kiwi and, until “The Press” can report to the contrary, we appear to be the only ally of the United States capable of self-determination counter to the wishes of the Pentagon. — Yours, etc.,

ARTHUR MAY. May 29, 1986.

Sir, —While the Christian Uriited States is busy hawking and organising its main national business of lining up one and all, nations great and small, into its world-wide belligerent nuclear network, and while the atheistic Soviet Union is likewise busy in opposite promotional activity of almost crusading zeal advancing the idea of peace on Earth and the gradual and determined abolition of Satan’s weaponry, our interests lie here, now and in the foreseeable future. Australia and New Zealand, being natural and blood-brother allies, should relinquish their past roles of stooges for foreign Powers and concentratate unitedUf* in their own economic and military interests

vis-a-vis the potentiality of possible “unsatisfactory political relations” developing as a result of the most outrageous population in the Asiatic near north. Threats of U.S. economic retaliation aside, Australia will not permit New Zealand to go down the drain. Mr Hawke would not last five minutes.—Yours, etc.,

W. J. COLLINS. May 29, 1986.