Nuclear stance

Press, 11 September 1989, Page 20

Nuclear stance

Sir,—New Zealand's antinuclear policy seems to infuriate various people on the political Far Right. In general, the present Labour Government is about as Mrs Thatcher’s

British Government; the antinuclear policy is about its only radical act. That policy is, however, favoured by a large majority of the population. The price we have had to pay for the policy is exclusion from A.N.Z.U.S. and some cavalier treatment of our representatives by the United States Administration. Contrary to the beliefs and expectations of some, no great harm to New Zealand appears to have been done by the United States pressure. How the commitment of ordinary New Zealanders to a sensible, nuclear non-alignment policy can be construed as a deep communist plot is hard to understand. It is silly of the far Right-wing to make such, untrue accusations. Kiwis must be given credit for sound common sense in these matters. Yours, etc., COLIN BURROWS. September 5, 1989.

Sir,—Bill Barry candidly admits “the potential for annihilation with nuclear weapons is undeniable," but wants New Zealand in an A.N.Z.U.S. that would tie it into such annihilation (September 6). ■ Anything else, he labels “sinister!” He fails to appreciate the necessity for neutral communication channels to prevent — or survive — international crises. The world has approached nuclear disaster a number of times. Without neutral intermediaries, we could have gone over the nuclear edge. Certainly the current improved international understanding would not exist. The greatest single issue is not who is “most wrong,” but that nuclear war be prevented, enabling other issues to be dealt with. There being no peacemaking neutral in the Paci-fic-Asian region, nuclear-free New Zealand must now fill the gap. We should develop (“In-formation-age”) peacemaking and other beneficial services to help improve regional relationships and give all, regardless of their differences with one another, a stake in our neutrality. — Yours, etc., J. GALLAGHER. September 7, 1989.

Sir,—lt appears that Bill Barry is guilty of selective reading (September 6, 1989) as we have criticised the communist massacre in Peking; invasion and war in Afghanistan. In criticising United States nuclear expansionism, basing and first-use strategy, I am a United States best friend, as these policies are leading to global disaster. Human survival depends on co-existence and cooperation between . different nations and ideologies and the growth of nuclear-free areas of peace and neutrality. To answer S. Wrathair and S. Hunt, three studies show no evidence of significant communist influence in the peace movement: (1) United States State Department study by Admiral Lloyd Vasey and Professor Henry Albinski (“N.Z. Times,” 27-1-85). (2) In- ■ 7

depth studies of the New Zealand peace movement by Roger Foley (“N.Z. Sunday Times,” 2-3-86. (3) Anthony Hubbard (“Dominion Sunday Times,” 5-4-87). We are not “anti-defence,” have nothing to hide and are an open book to investigative journalists or the S.I.S. any time. — Yours, etc.,

LARRY ROSS Secretary N.Z. Nuclear-free Peacemaking Association. September 7, 1989.