New frigates

Press, 13 September 1988, Page 12

New frigates

Sir,—You state that “New Zealand has a moral responsibility for the safety of some South Pacific islands” (September 8). However, the suggestion that security comes through military alliances and the acquisition of frigates is obviously not true, since, with all the massive buildup of weaponry world wide, few countries feel any sense of security or peace. The nuclear “deterrent” does not bring a feeling of security to most people, but only increases fear and tension. Real security can only come through disarmament. New Zealand could best serve its Pacific neighbours and ourselves by'rejecting military alliances and costly frigate purchases and by pursuing an active peacemaking role. If Austria, surrounded as it is by six neighbouring States (four of which are allied to rival super-PowerS), can feel secure in its neutrality and active peacemaking policy, how much easier it should bej for us to adopt a similar policy— Yours, etc., D. STOCKER. September 9,1988.

Sir,—T. R. Loudon’s type of national pride (September 10) smacks of the kind of unquestioning, automatic loyalty that enabled leaders to wage major wars in the past, where, in spite of “victories,” all were ultimately losers. Unlike Mr Loudon, I am still proud to be a Kiwi. After years of largely ignoring our international relations and the growth of international understanding instead of national and racial bigotry, I am at last committed to peace as a purpose in life. I see great hope in New Zealanders’ efforts in this direction. It is only some Kiwis I am not proud of at this moment. In particular, I admire the courage (not cowardice) of those who have spoken out for the moral necessity of disentanglement from nuclear-based alliances, whether East or West. This reflects not ingratitude, but a recognition of the changed prerequisites for survival. — Yours, etc., .

' JULIET R. ADAMS. September 10, 1988.

Sir,—L. Dalziel (September 8) has not grasped the distinction between reputable news reporting (which should aim to record what happens) and correspondence columns (where citizens normally express partisan views, but should be able to support

them with relevant facts and arguments). I am sure the Editor understands this distinction, and the momentary slip when a fairly and objectively reported interview with a peace researcher is headlined “peacenik ...” Within the limited space available, I have always been willing to engage in rational debate. Over four years I have challenged one virulent, but not altogether unique, anti-peace movement correspondent 16 times to defend his opinion. Instead, he has returned a stream of (inaccurate, inappropriate) labels and smears. L. Dalziel legitimately queries my claim about reputable non-peace movement opposition to frigates. It has included defence White Papers, retired Captain Bradley (National Party) and retired Lieutenant-Commander David Davies, as well as business leaders, Hugh Fletcher and Bob Jones. — Yours, etc., J. GALLAGHER. September 9, 1988.