Envoy says anti-nuclear means vary

Press, 22 September 1987, Page 29

Envoy says anti-nuclear means vary

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

political reporter

Keeping peace in the world and avoiding nuclear war are at the heart of United StatesNew Zealand relations, according to the United States Ambassador, Mr Paul Cleveland. He told the annual meeting of the Otago Chamber in Dunedin recently that in percentage terms more people in New Zealand wanted to “make a statement” on the nuclear issue than in either the United States or Europe.

Both North America and Europe had had their share of antinuclear demonstrations and other expressions of concern, and many still demonstrated.

But with most of the Soviet Union’s 10,000-plus nuclear warheads pointed at them, most Americans and Europeans had come to a somewhat different perspective and set of priorities to New Zealanders on the question of how nuclear weapons should be reduced, Mr Cleveland said. Most Americans and Europeans were less inclined to want to reduce their arsenals without re-

ciprocity and verification.

“Peace is not a destination, some kind of Elysian field, a land of milk and honey, a love-in ... at least not among mankind as it exists today,” he said.

Peace was a hard slog; it was the product of brilliant and not-so-brllli-ant indefatigable work; it was at times a high-risk venture; it was being prepared if necessary to be unpeaceable; it was hanging tough and hanging together in the face of unceasing pressure; it was a never-ending odyssey where the goal was always receding. He said New Zealanders had a range of views on world peace and avoidance of nuclear war just as wide as the range expressed In the United States.

The centre of gravity of those views in New Zealand — certainly among the younger generation — was somewhat different from the centre of gravity of opinion in the United States. There was no difference on the objective of peace and stability but there were differences on the best means to get there, Mr Cleveland said.