New frigates

Press, 3 November 1988, Page 14

New frigates

Sir—Your editorial, “The need for Anzac frigates,” is curiously pre-nuclear. You define a return to collective “security” as in our best long-term interests. Anything else you define as “anti-defence.” The S2B to S3B frigates are, indeed, primarily for A.N.Z.U.S. fleet work. They are primarily geared to hunt submarines; in a build-up to World War 111 they would, with our Orions and Australian frigates in communication with the United States command, be r

likely to seek to locate Soviet submarines preparing to target United States bases in Australia. . Your “defence” would qualify New Zealand for nuclear retaliation. Your concept of security utterly baffles me, and surely most nuclear-free New Zealanders. The Pacific does not lack potential warmakers and targets. It does lack a neutral peacemaker to reduce tensions that, unchecked, can lead to a major war (should that occur, New Zealand should provide services of benefit to surviving protagonists — possible only if all respect our neutral zone of peace.) — Yours, etc., J. GALLAGHER. October 27, 1988.

Sir,—After reading the arguments justifying a blue-water navy (October 27), it was a relief to hear a retired lieutenantcommander, Dave Davies, express his views. He sees no need to spend S2B on frigates, but suggests New Zealand needs support/protection vessels, like Britain uses in the North Sea, to protect our fisheries, for sea rescue and disaster relief operations in the Pacific. Apart from the cost of the frigates, which New Zealand cannot afford, New Zealanders need to realise that close military ties with Australia draw us back into the nuclear alliance and make a farce of our nuclear-free status. The most invalid argument of all is that the frigate project would create SIB of work for New Zealand firms as a spin-off. I suppose that is what they said in Germany when finance was needed to build the concentration camps. — Yours, etc., ANNELIES PEKELHARING. October 28, 1988.

Sir,—l, and perhaps most New Zealanders, would agree with your editorial assertion (October 27) that New Zealand’s defence is a matter too critical to be determined by the “internal wranglings of the Labour Party.” As you put it, “when people see other parts of the Government’s spending being squeezed, a preference for expenditure offering more obvious benefits is not surprising.” Reflection will ascertain the reason for the many expressions of concern by the public regarding priorities offered by Government spending. With the vast number of unemployed who have no hope of work, more jobs should be of paramount importance. The necessity for these fighting frigates is perplexing, as we have no perceivable enemies. The U.S.S.R. is a major trading partner, and offers more trade, and has requested landing rights for Aeroflot recently. Our Government should extend its peacemaking role, and aim to resolve international differences by mediation and United Nations support.—Yours, etc., COEUR DE LA COUR. October 27, 1988.

Sir, —You try to dimiss public concern about the cost of the proposed four frigates by telling us that it will be paid over many years and will come out of the defence vote. This is rather like saying: “Don’t worry, kiddies, about your annual rates bill of $2OOO, because you’ll be paying in four instalments of $5OO, and it’ll be done by automatic payments which you authorised years ago and cannot alter.” I call those arguments phoney. And I am not in the least impressed by your assumption that the best, or only, way for this country to be taken seriously and “exert an influence beyond its own shores” is by armed strength. Let us abandon the whole project and shift to more positive uses for taxpayers’ money.—Yours, etc., PETER A. LOW. October 30, 1988.