‘Friendship on a Scrap Heap’

Your thoughtful editorial on the ANZUS “crisis” (Feb. 7), “Friendship on a Scrap Heap?” overlooks two significant facts.

First, refusal by the New Zealand government to permit a port visit by a U.S. warship in no way impaired the military value of the planned Sea Eagle naval exercise. All training was to be accomplished at sea, not in port.

Second, ANZUS is an alliance of sovereign nations in which each must respect the political policies of the other members. We correctly criticize the Soviet Union for dominating the Warsaw Treaty Organization by coercing members into supporting Soviet policies. The great strength of the Western alliances is that they are based on mutual respect and shared values among the members. All too often, both in Europe and the Pacific, we now see the United States attempting to impose decisions on our allies, even resorting to political intimidation in the name of U.S. security requirements.

U.S. security interests will be better served in the long run by maintaining strong alliances based on mutual respect among equals, not by stooping to the same tactics that we justly condemn when the Soviets coerce their satellites.

EUGENE J. CARROLL JR.

Washington, D.C.

Carroll, a retired Navy rear admiral, is deputy director of the Center for Defense Information.

At this time of the year 43 years ago New Zealanders were wondering if the next warships in Auckland would be Japanese. Or if we Americans could put something together in time to stem the sweep of Japan into the Western Pacific. On Feb. 19 they would get news that Darwin, Australia, had been attacked with heavy Allied losses. The Japanese were at Rabaul, 1,600 nautical miles to the northwest, getting ready to take Port Moresby, New Guinea.

The previous spring, March, 1941, our American task force visited Auckland. We were royally entertained. Their biggest crisis, they said, was the loss of the ship with their Scotch whiskey. Their men were in North Africa, they could not protect themselves if war came to the Pacific.

We Americans got the carriers Lexington and Yorktown between New Zealand and Australia and the Japanese in May in the Coral Sea. The battle at Midway in June, and a year’s hard fighting in the Solomons, made New Zealand safe by February, 1943.

A New Zealand visit in 1971 found those ‘40s years still vivid, the Americans still credited. A visit in 1983 found the 1940s out of mind--too long ago for the threat of invasion to be remembered by the present generation, children then.

It is 1985 and American warships are no longer welcome in Kiwi ports. They are a great people, they have never refused a call to arms. But new people govern, new ideas are abroad, and a new fleet sails the Far East--and it is not American.

W.J. VALENTINE

Long Beach

As a New Zealander now resident in Los Angeles, I must comment on my country’s reported refusal to allow an American ship to enter the port of Wellington.

New Zealand has a long and honorable record of service in the history of man’s struggle to overcome oppression. New Zealanders and Americans fought side by side for the betterment of mankind in two world wars.

Many Americans with whom I have spoken during my few months in your country were guests of New Zealanders during the dark days of World War II. All have fond memories of a “down under” country that featured a courageous tradition of quiet dignity. It was a place where a “bloke” could go his own way, be a good neighbor, and be proud of his life.

Americans who could recall those days would be disappointed in New Zealand now.

Trade unions, which once concentrated on the rights of the worker in society, have obtained a voice in local politics, and been infiltrated by influences sympathetic to the Eastern bloc. As an ex-member of the trade union movement in New Zealand, having held executive status, I can attest that many “power positions” in unions in that country are held by personnel who seek guidance and leadership from Communist sympathizers.

The present Labor government, which has long had a policy of support for the trade union movement, is in the unhappy position of being a dog wagged by its own tail. The admirable objectives of unionism, proudly upheld by political pioneers from the earliest settler days, are now working against their creators.

I do not believe that Prime Minister David Lange, as a politician sensitive to the needs of his country, would refuse right of entry to any vessel under the flag of an allied power, nuclear “threat” or not, given freedom of choice.

I do believe that pressure groups formed by trade unions with Eastern bloc associations are manipulating the present government and attempting to destroy existing defense treaties.

COLIN C. VEITCH

Los Angeles

It would appear to this reader that the United States is both overreacting and misdirecting its retaliation in its current controversy with New Zealand regarding the destroyer visit.

New Zealand has the right to ask us not to let a nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessel visit its ports if it wishes, and why should we get ourselves all steamed up over such an unimportant issue? If a problem develops whereby New Zealand’s ports are of importance to us, they’ll be the first to come forward and open them up. But now all we are doing is looking bad to their hotheads and swaying public sentiment behind Labor, which is not in our long-term best interests.

And to threaten retaliation by barring agriculture imports from New Zealand is to really cut off our nose to spite our faces. The best friends we have in New Zealand are the farmers. The socialistic, left-leaning element is primarily the urban worker, not the farmer. The farmer tends to be more conservative and supportive of the United States.

We have many fine friends in New Zealand. They have their hands full trying to keep politics from swinging too far left. Let’s help them, not give the other side ammunition.

DAVID M. GHORMLEY

Pacific Palisades

Your editorial makes it sound as if the United States has been hurt and betrayed by New Zealand. That New Zealand no longer wants us for friends.

New Zealand is not being anti-American or anti-ANZUS. On the contrary, the people of New Zealand are trying to show us the way toward a world free of the nuclear threat. Are we too blind to see it? The American people have marched, protested, demonstrated, petitioned and voted against nuclear weapons. But yet our beloved President wants more and more weapons.

Last July, the voters in New Zealand elected a government pledged to make New Zealand a nuclear-free zone, the first such country in the world. The U.S.S.R. has pledged never to use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have nuclear weapons on their soil. Why does New Zealand need a defense pact? Who does New Zealand fear? What the people of New Zealand and the rest of the world fear is not the U.S.S.R. but nuclear war.

The United States and the U.S.S.R. are like two good friends who are slowly killing themselves by smoking and drinking too much, and like a good friend, New Zealand is trying to tell them not to come and smoke and drink in her house, hoping that they will look at what they are doing to themselves.

What the United States is really afraid of is that Australia and Japan might follow New Zealand’s example and make nuclear weapons unwanted in their countries too. Someday, the United States might, like a little boy, wake up and have to sullenly pack up his war toys and go home. Then perhaps the Pacific Ocean could again live up to her name meaning “peaceful” and “tranquil.”

ROBERT SAMUELSON

Los Angeles

Hooray for New Zealand! At last we have a country that will stand tall and say, “No more nukes.”

BETTY C. DAHLSTROM

Sun City, Ariz.