A.N.Z.U.S.

Press, 11 May 1989, Page 12

A.N.Z.U.S.

Sir,—l support the opinions expressed by Mr John Longbottom (May 6). I, too, have read the complete text of Mr Lange’s speech at Yale, and I, too, question the uproar that resulted. Like Mr Longbottom, and also Mr R. G. Maxsted (May 6), I, too, am beginning to wonder if the press are participants, and not only spectators who report. The speech provides a concise and clear history of the development of New Zealand’s relationship with the' United States, leading logically and rationally to the statement: “This raises the issue of whether New Zealand should give formal notice of withdrawal from the A.N.Z.U.S. Council.” Notice that “this raises the issue ...”; it does not announce Government policy. I wonder how many New Zealanders have had the opportunity to read Mr Lange’s speech. I wonder how many, having had the opportunity, actually did read the speech, and did form their own opinion,

rather than ignoring their responsibility to themselves by relying upon someone else to tell them what they think about it. — Yours, etc., CARL HORN. May 7, 1989.

Sir, —R. Maxtsed (May 6) must have his blinkers on in his adulation of Mr Lange. The man has proved to be a buffoon. Look at his pathetic attempts to backtrack on his Yale A.N.Z.U.S. speech and yet state he stands by everything he said. His constant acidic tongue is an embarrassment. The constant “policy on the hoof” clearly demonstrates his contempt for the Cabinet process. This is exactly why he seems to have lost control of his caucus. However, his ability to articulate nothing so eloquently and with such gusto is to be admired. Mr Lange may blame his detractors for his slump in the polls, but if he was a strong Prime Minister the criticism would be weathered. Even Sir Robert Muldoon carried high support when under attack. —

Yours, etc., KEITH PEACOCK. May 6, 1989.

Sir,—J. Price (May 6) wants New Zealand to be a part of the West, and points out correctly that overall, Switzerland, too, is “strongly committed” to Western values. However, Switzerland’s foreign policy is neutral, enabling it to stand between West and East as a peacemaker useful to both — a state of affairs I have always commended. As to defence, I have never advocated the Swiss model for a New Zealand bordered by a huge moat rather than historical war zones. Expenditures vary amongst neutrals: Austria’s defence cost 1.2 per cent of its G.N.P. in 1984, and Finland’s 1.5 per cent, when “allied” New Zealand spent 1.9 per cent. Switzerland spends less than Australia (in A.N.Z.U.S.!). Neutral Costa Rica is virtually “unarmed.” J. Price and Katie Doak overlook the key point about any World War III: lining up with one super-Power attracts the other’s nuclear retaliation. Nuclear pacts are suicide pacts. — Yours, etc., J. GALLAGHER. May 6, 1989.

Sir,—Western Europe is working towards a common financial system. If this succeeds one can expect a further merging towards a political entity. That bewildered giant, China, should soon be a full great Power. Also, the burgeoning economies round Japan will not for ever be content to accept the “leadership” of the United States, they will have enough muscle to make inde- ’ pendent policies, as Germany is doing today. So there are signs of the imminent ending of the bipolarisation of the world into the present two power blocs. This is good news for the military safety of our world (which will either be de-nuclearised or will soon be •a lifeless planet) and for the political choices of small countries like New Zealand. We can then (and should now) retain our Western values (other than imperialism and racism), be militarily neutral and void our A.N.Z.U.S. role of a forward, unsinkable base in the imperial pretensions of the United States. — Yours, etc., ROBERT A. SMITHAM. May 7, 1989.

Sir, —My pride as a New Zealander was never more outraged than when the VicePresident of the United States, speaking to journalists at Canberra, attempted, with a few snide remarks, to reduce New Zealand to a position of a pariah among Western nations. In a

book, “Return to Paradise,” published in 1951, a brilliant American historian wrote: “Few Americans appreciate the tremendous sacrifices made by New Zealand in the last two wars. Among the Allies she had the highest percentage of men in arms — much higher than the United States — the greatest percentage overseas and the largest percentage killed.” Such statistics entitle New Zealand to an honourable place among Western nations. Thousands of our families had suffered anxiety and grief long before American’s self-centred hopes of no military involvement had been blasted away at Pearl Harbour. Our sovereign rights of nationhood have been well-earned and hardearned and, in the light of that indisputable fact, the National Party’s present policy of appeasement is belittling, while its so-called “nuclear-free” policy is illogical to the point of outright dishonesty.—Yours, etc.,

ALEX SEWELL. May 7, 1989.