Nuclear stance

Press, 1 August 1989, Page 12

Nuclear stance

and fraßkty.that Sue Hunt (July 28) Is. Totally wrong “in believing that New?Zeaiand is crucial to the Soviet Union because of its geographic relationship vis-a-vis Australia and Antarctica,” if her bellef is based on the absurd scenario outlined in her letter of. JuW24. A.N.Z.U.S. is a treaty

that bound New Zealand and Australia into the United States’ global network of aggressive military bases, the aim of which is to assert United States hegemony over the self-styled “free world,” justification for which is claimed to be a non-existent “Soviet threat,” for which Sue Hunt is such an ardently dedicated scaremonger. That New Zealand has been excluded from receiving military intelligence and participation in A.N.Z.U.S. exercises is an accrued bonus to our nuclear-warship ban that should be hailed with loud hosannas and hallelujahs.—Yours, etc., M. CREEL. July 28,1989. Sir, —Has C. Burrows (July 29) considered what would happen if every decent country took his advice and deserted the Western Alliance for fear of being a Soviet nuclear target? . Surely the U.S.S.R. would then be free to communise any number of newly “neutral” countries without , fear of the nuclear deterrent that has prevented such for the last 44 years. That the anti-defence movement seeks to . hand- the MLS.S.R<such foreign policy victories gratis is un- . surprising, considering the number of Self-confessed communists who hold key /positions in the movement. JR. treaty showed, that bilateral . disarmament is the. way to a safer world,' ’ not the unilateral weakening of the West that our anti-defence. / correspondents advocate. Yours, etc.,' .' • ,'V /V? * STEPHEN WRATHALL July 29,1989. - . . i