Nuclear stance

Press, 21 May 1987, Page 20

Nuclear stance

Sir, —Sue Hunt asks me about “positive neutrality and traditional defence links with Australia” (May 18). Leading Australian Opposition politicians threaten to lever us back into a nuclear-A.N.Z.U.S. whenever they gain power. Such nuclear links are not “traditional defence.” They draw nuclear fire in a nuclear war, correctly seen by most New Zealanders as the most likely threat to their security under A.N.Z.U.S. Australia itself is so locked into the American nuclear war fighting machine that it is a well-estab-lished, prime-nuclear target. Our

best contribution to the nuclearage security of ourselves and our traditional friends is not to link with them as nuclear targets in a nuclear exchange. Developing, instead, tension-reducing mediation and nuclear-arms reduction roles, like neutral Switzerland, Sweden', Austria, and Finland, would be more useful to all concerned. Of course, under peacemaking neutrality, we could have enhanced diplomatic and economic links with all nations. But not, in plain language, military alliances. — Yours, etc., J. GALLAGHER. May 18, 1987.