Letters

Thumbs Down To Pacific Alliance

IN response to the article on a US/Pa cific alliance on page 34 of your Sep tember 1987 issue: Do the Pacific basin nations really need an alliance treaty that ties them to the escalating superpower ri valry arising in the region? Hopefully not.

Doing so would compromise and jeopar dise their independent status in interna tional spheres.

A US/Pacific treaty could only reduce the basin nations to supplicant clients rather than independent allies. A look at several areas of international intrigue in vites this conclusion.

The Pacific nations — the basin na tions, Japan, New Zealand, and several large metropolitan areas such as Hilo, Ha waii and Vancouver, Canada — have set into motion an unprecedented momen tum to curb nuclear proliferation. This anti-nuclear message has become a ne mesis to US nuclear policy makers and a clear message to the Soviets that a no nu clear tolerance exists in the Pacific.

Another area of concern arises out of the American paranoia over a purported Soviet bear thrashing out from Cam Ranh Bay. Perhaps the paranoia is over-exag gerated. A formidable Soviet military presence undoubtably exists, but it’s a pittance compared with American assets in the Philippines, Japan, Guam, South Korea and Hawaii.

A polarising defence agreement with the US would only serve to invite Soviet trickery instead of productive trade.

Sea-bed mining and fishing rights are other areas that invite Pacific supplica tion. Untold wealth from these finite re sources laps at the shores of the Pacific nations. Only international agreements as negotiated from positions of independ ence without duress can truly benefit the basin nations.

Advocates of avoiding a US/Pacific al liance can find supporting historical par allels in the Caribbean. Most noteworthy is the Reagan administration’s successful Caribbean Basin Initiative — a highly successful program that stimulated gulf economies without elaborate economic and defense agreements.

Perhaps a similar plan, a sort of Pacific Marshall Plan or a Pacific Basin Initia tive, is more timely. Such a plan would be more fruitful in fulfilling the needs of the Pacific nations, especially the basin na tions, than the alliance as proposed by LCdr Stavridis, the author of your article.

If the US desires mutual pact agree ments with its basin neighbours it must re cognise their new political consciousness.

Gus Comstock, Lemoore,

Ca 93245 Usa.

Vive La France!

Asa reader of Pacific Islands Monthly for many years, I must add my voice to those who have congratulated you on your new look and new place in regional affairs.

I have noted with alarm the coverage your journal has given the role of France in the Pacific in past years, and am happy to see more balanced writing making its appear ance. But I have some questions for you.

If France is so bad, why did the citizens of New Caledonia vote overwhelmingly for their country to remain a part of France?

If the independentist Kanaks boycot ted the referendum, why did the final vote add up to all the Europeans, Polynesians, Vietnamese and others (all in favour of staying as a part of the Republic) PLUS al most half the Kanaks also in favour of maintaining New Caledonia as a territory of France?

And even if the vote had been for in dependence, who would run the country of Kanaky? The Kanaks are not a major ity of the population, and if they claim to be democratic Socialists, they could not impose their ideas on the majority. Nei ther could they run the Government effec tively partly, perhaps, because the current Government of France has stopped them learning administration, but also because they simply do not have a plat form for an alternative Government.

Like many French people, I do not agree with nuclear weapons and do not support bomb testing at Mururoa atoll. But at least I can see that it has acquainted Po lynesians with technical matters and employments.

This of course is not a justification for exploding bombs in the Pacific, but I would ask how Pacific countries would react if France criticised them?

Jean-Claude Bonné

Bowen Hills Qld, Australia.

Nz’S Lunatic Left

THE challenge to the Lange Labour Government in New Zealand from the radicals of the party is typical of the tactics of the lunatic left. These people sat back silently and allowed the Prime Minister to win the election in a landslide then, from the safe haven of a great victory, came out of the woodwork and threatened to de stroy unity unless their own crackpot pol icies were adopted.

The electorate voted for David Lange’s policies, not for those of a ragtag band of Soviet sympathisers and fellow travellers.

They should be dealt with.

Athol Goodyear Palmerston North New Zealand.