Policy on A.N.Z.U.S.

Press, 20 April 1979, Page 14

Policy on A.N.Z.U.S.

Sir, — In reponse to the statement by the United States Ambassador, Mr Selden, on A.N.Z.U.S., I would like to add that there is nothing in the text of the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty which requires New Zealand to harbour United States nuclear war vessels. As Mr Caygill correctly points out, the treaty requires little more than consultation in the event of war. Moreover, the present United States military policy has been since 1975 an offensive strategy aiming to achieve in one final nuclear attack the entire destruction of the “enemy.” This aggressive first-strike strategy contradicts the terms of the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty which was designed as a defence treaty to preserve peace and security in the Pacific. The presence in the Pacific of Trident — the ultimate firststrike weapon — guarantees insecurity for New Zealand and her’Pacific neighbours. New Zealand would truly honour its obligations to the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty by actively supporting a nuclearfree zone in the Pacific. — Yours, etc., A. W. O’CONNOR. April 18, 1979. Sir, I resent the way the departing United States Ambassador has instructed New Zealand on our actions under the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty. We must let the warships in, he says, if the United States is to fulfil its commitments. As your editorial pointed out, the treaty includes no “commitments” but merely a promise to consider a call for help. In such an event our “protector” would obviously put its own interests well ahead of ours. So why must it .be taken for granted that little New Zealand does whatever we are asked? Why accept the treaty as a sacred cow? It actually places this country in jeopardy as an adjunct to a super Power, and could make us an accomplice in a nuclear war. While we are busy deploring Idi Amin, we might consider the atrocities we could share in inflicting upon innocent people. — Yours, etc., ELSIE LOCKE. April 19, 1979. Sir, — Your editorial of April 16 correctly points out that the countries of a nuclear weapon-free zone would have to exclude (from support facilities of any sort) ail armed forces except those known not to be armed with - nuclear weapons. David Caygill (April 17) reminds us that this is not incompatible with A.N.Z.U.S., but even if it led to the end of that treaty, we would be safer accepting the resulting risks than becoming a base for the new firststrike nuclear war plans of the United States military and, by the rules of the game they play, a target for the first-strike counter-force of the Soviet Union, as it follows suit. This new round in the arms race is removing any stability from the “bal-

ance of terror.” By resisting it the countries of the nuclear weapon-free zone would be leading the way for the world to escape from the nuclear arms race. — Yours, etc., JIM McCAHON, Rangiora. April 18, 1979.