Letters

Quaker opposition THE Fiji Action Committee of Quaker Peace and Service hopes that the New Zealand Government will not resume top level political ties with the present regime in Fiji and that it will not consider any military assistance to it.

The regime was established through military action by one section of the Melanesian people against a democratically elected Government, in which all the people of Fiji had expressed their wishes in a constitutional way.

Apparent acceptance of this military action, whatever the pretext, signals acceptance of violence and can set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the Pacific and for New Zealand, too.

Mary Woodward

Fiji Action Committee QPSNZ, Auckland Bounty debate, Part 111 NO wonder Norman Douglas is eager to close the “Bounty debate” ( PIM , Letters, May 1990). Despite his profuse and grossly sarcastic verbiage (which evident ly is his idea of humour) he is still un able to point out one single substantial inaccuracy or error (or even unlikeli

hood) in my book Mutiny and Romance in the South Seas: A Companion to the Bounty Adventure.

On the other hand, how can one de bate meaningfully with someone who doesn’t have his facts straight (e.g.), it was the Government of Fiji who used the

phrase “principal discoverer of Fiji” to

describe Bligh), who prefers sarcasm to constructive criticism, and who claims that his sense of adventure is proved by his passport and (oh dear, to use Mr Douglas’ phrase) his sense of romance by his ex-wives?

Sven Wahlroos, Ph.D.

California Forum airline WHILST I was pleased to see you quot ing from my contribution to Chris Kis sling’s book, Communications and Transport for Pacific Micro-States , (USP 1984), I very much regret the situation that is developing in scheduled airline service within the South Pacific. Only Air Pacific has the critical mass necessary for sustainable self-sufficiency and yet, coun tries suffering from under-provision of

air service by major metropolitan car

riers continue to launch brave, but

under resourced, new airline ventures.

Whilst some six or seven years ago I was of the view that a liberalisation of

the inappropriate traffic rights regime

would be of great advantage to the South Pacific carriers, I believe that the markets and capacity have changed to such an extent that the only way for aviation to be put on a sound footing within the South Pacific is the formation of a co-operative regional carrier.

The island states of the Pacific have established a now successful Forum ship ping line and the Forum could be an ideal launching vehicle for such an air line. Of course, non Forum countries must be invited to participate and hope fully, New Zealand and Fiji, whilst re taining the identities of their widebody operating carriers, will be willing to ex plore a basis of their future contribution as well.

The situation requires an initiative: as a former airline executive and now as a consultant with extensive awareness of Pacific aviation, I can see no other solu tion to the ongoing losses which no in vestor can afford, whether that investor

be private or public.

Jm King

Melbourne