Labour And Conscription

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31057, 12 May 1966, Page 18

Labour And Conscription

Sir, —Conscription must be a matter of principle and not a political vote-catching expedient. Labour has proved itself in favour of conscription in the past and has no record to show it could resist pressure from Downing street or the White House. It is difficult to see how any Government can oppose conscription yet still support military means of settling disputes. Those who oppose conscription as it affects them personally can still refuse to serve. Young men should make a decision not to serve in Vietnam or anywhere else regardless of the consequences. The gyrations of political parties will not then frustrate them. As one who made that decision 30 years ago I have never had cause to question ft—Yours, etc, COUN CURTIS.

May 11, 1966. Sir, —General Ky’s latest statement, “If the people elected a Communist or a neutralist Government, we (the armed forces) would stand up and fight them,” should make clear to all but the inly blind the kind of “democracy” we are supposed to be defending in Vietnam. General Ky must be almost

certain of an unfavourable election result or he would not have embarrassed his Western allies with such a statement. The situation as it now stands is that unless the South Vietnamese vote for “capitalist freedom” they will be subjected to the horrors of continuing war, which is dastardly political blackmail to the suffering majority whose overwhelming desire must be for peace. Labour would have to go back on all its principles to introduce conscription in such conditions. —Yours, etc., REALIST. May 9, 1966.

Sir,—l cannot agree with “J.8.E.” that the United States saved New Zealand from the Japanese. With the usual self-interest, she came into the war only when she herself was attacked. Before that, on the face of things, the United States could not have cared less what happened to New Zealand.— Yours, etc., G.R.H. May 11, 1966.

Sir, —Tom Bryce has also delved into the past and fished up the phrase, “on active service.” Since 1939, war means active service for all, whether in uniform or not. In 1966 a Prime Minister whose duty can take him overseas is very much on active service. The old Labour “stalwarts” could see no danger to New Zealand from a victory for German aggression. They were only concerned for their consciences. Yesterday Mr Skinner, referring to the Chinese explosion, said, “I think it will shock the conscience of the world.” Others are sure it will, and are not content to back-pedal before it like Messrs Kirk and Skinner in their vote-catching act on a bicycle built for two.— Yours, etc., A. B. CEDARIAN. May 11, 1966.

Sir, —Mr Kirk has made two statements—that the Government is going to introduce conscription to provide troops for Vietnam, and that when he and his party become the Government they will pull our artillery unit out of Vietnam and replace them with Engineers and non-combat units with infantry to protect them. Well, really, he must think the public are a lot of ning-nongs if they will listen to such stuff and believe it. It is probably political votecatching propaganda on the theory that you can fool some of the people all the time.— Yours, etc., SEATO. May 10, 1966.