New frigates

Press, 15 September 1988, Page 14

New frigates

Sir, —Regular readers of these columns will be well used to the periodic outpourings of T. R. Loudon, but in his latest attack (September 10) on those New Zealanders who are able to think for themselves Mr Loudon reaches new heights. The squandering of S2B on four unsuitable and unnecessary warships is being opposed by the New Zealand Labour Party, the whole of the peace movement and thousands of ordinary Kiwis on grounds of realism, something which seems to elude Mr Loudon. To accuse us of cowardice is an insult, which this writer as an ex-regular serviceman and anti-nuclear campaigner finds deeply offensive. — Yours, etc., R. L. PLUCK. September 10, 1988. Sir, —If we buy, the new frigates will cost S2B. We do not need the expensive, specialised equipment, inappropriate for New Zealand. We do need the houses this money could buy. We do need the jobs created in the many associated trades and the improved living conditions of 20,000 homeless families. We do need a better return for dollars spent.—Yours, etc., J. THOMPSON. September 12, 1988. Sir,—Several days ago someone spoke with approval of New Zealand being a “non-threatening country.” I hope we can stay that way, for in this fact and in our non-nuclear policy lie our security and our good influence in helping to keep the Pacific peaceful. I refer to the warning of Mr Bruce Kent, president of the International Peace Bureau, “that the Pacific might become the focal point of the arms, race” (“The Press,” November 11), and to the encouragement given to New Zealand’s non-nuclear policy. If we purchase four frigates at such enormous cost we will not remain non-threatening. We will become part of the A.N.Z.U.S. club once more, and will become involved in superpower politics and conflicts. The cost of these frigates is more than enough to. build houses for the families on the Housing Corporation waiting list. It wbuld also do a lot more for health and education. We are told we cannot afford these things. How then, can we afford these frigates. It would be appropriate to spend

much less on much smaller ships suitable for patrolling our fishing grounds. Let us stay with our non-threatening, non-nuclear policy for the sake of a peaceful Pacific.—Yours, etc., MURIEL MORRISON. September 11, 1988. Sir, —To put a few things into perspective, I would like to point out that in a 25-knot wind, provided there are no equipment failures, a catamaran can go faster than a frigate. — Yours, etc. JOHN RING. September 13, 1988. Sir, —The myth that a handful of peace people hijacked New Zealand foreign policy in 1985, as claimed by T. Loudon (September 10), was invented by Frank Comer, retired head of the Foreign Affairs Department, after a massive public endorsement of the Government’s nuclear-free policy, in the 1984 elections. The strongly proA.N.Z.U.S. Mr Comer helped select, train and promote those employees most loyal to A.N.Z.U.S. ideology, which includes some 100 known and secret agreements locking New Zealand into the United StatesAustralian nuclear war infrastructure with nuclear warship visits. It is this handful at the top of Foreign Affairs who have the ear of Mr Lange and are pushing hard for him to commit New Zealand to waste S2B on Australian frigates, which would be integrated into United Statescontrolled A.N.Z.U.S. nuclear and conventional strategies. If they succeed in this “hijack,” our nuclear-free legislation will be little more than a peacetime camouflage for a “pro-nuclear-wartime” policy. — Yours, etc., LARRY ROSS, Secretary, N.Z. Nuclear-free Peacemaking Association. September 13, 1988. Sir,—Who the L. Dalziel referred to by J. Gallagher (September 13) is, and whatever the distinctions L. Dalziel may or may not have grasped, J. Gallagher completely misunderstands my letter of September 8 Reading J. Gallagher’s letters over four years I find that those with his/her views are described as logical, reasonable, fair, objective, clear-thinking, rational, farsighted, caring, prudent, of integrity, character and intelligencewhile those opposing those views are named virulent, not unique illogical, partisan, inaccurate’ inappropriate, and...need I go on? No wonder J. Gallagher cannot expand an argument under 150 words when he continually uses wasteful, emotive and labelling language — ironically, the basis of his original complaint to you!—Yours, etc R. P. DALZIEL. September 13, 1988. _____