by Kennedy Graham
Last week (24 Sept) I questioned the Government in the House over its nuclear-free policy.
New Zealand Nat-Lab Governments have prided themselves in recent years over their pristine nuclear-free policy. In the mid-1980s, we helped lead in the Pacific initiative to create the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone. Then, unsatisfied with the weakness of the regional zone in allowing nuclear-armed warships to enter the harbours of treaty states, we legislated in Parliament against their entry into our own.
New Zealand not only had rejected nuclear deterrence, foresworn the possession of nuclear weapons, and forbidden their deployment on our land, but had prohibited their existence in our harbours.
That was a Labour initiative. National opposed it bitterly at the time, swearing to reverse the policy and revive the ANZUS reliance on nuclear deterrence for our defence. Back in power, they tore at their own caucus entrails through indecision before discovering that the nuclear-free policy enjoyed permanent majority support in the country. Last week, PM John Key, beaming inclusively at everyone who moved, celebrated the policy as a child of National worldview.
ACT remains characteristically unrepentant. Deputy leader Heather Roy last week in Taranaki, perhaps assuming no-one elsewhere was listening, lamented the absence of nuclear warships. But then, the erstwhile representatives of consumers and taxpayers, ever the méchants, believe that climate change is a hoax. At least up until 8 November 2008.
The problem with Nat-Lab is the distinction they draw between the domestic and international dimensions of our nuclear-free policy. At home we stand firm on banning nuclear weapons and repudiating nuclear deterrence, and calling for a nuclear-free world. At the UN, we politically pick and choose between resolutions that reflect those goals.
So we support resolutions, sponsored by Malaysia and Costa Rica, calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention that would introduce a global ban. Yet we vote against India’s resolutions calling for similar goals.
- 63/47 calling for a reduction in nuclear danger through revising nuclear strategic doctrines;
- 63/75 calling for a convention on the prohibition of use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
This was the issue I asked questions about in the House, asking if the Government would reverse its policy and support these resolutions this year. After all, the Prime Minister had, on 8 April, assured me during Question Time that New Zealand always supports all nuclear-free resolutions at the UN.
But no, was the reply last week. We shall not support those resolutions since we do not wish to accord India any ‘nuclear disarmament credentials’, given it has refused to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
What the Government fails to acknowledge is that India’s resolutions are consistent with our nuclear-free policy. We are therefore voting, not on the basis of logical consistency of our policy but on a political judgement that second-guesses the sponsor’s motives.
If we were to do that to all countries we would not support anyone or anything.
India is not perfect but neither is it nefarious. In its complacent way, the NZ Government fails to acknowledge that India, for some 30 years (1960s to ’90s) had called for a nuclear-free world, criticising the nuclear-weapon retention of the major powers for their failure to meet their obligations. These are:
- Their binding legal obligation under the NPT to negotiate in good faith nuclear disarmament measures leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons from their national arsenals;
- Their obligation under the UN Charter to formulate a global arms regulatory system.
To assist them in these goals, India had formulated in the 1980s a 20-year phase-out plan for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The major powers steadfastly ignored it.
In the ‘80s, I used to work within MFAT on our nuclear-free policy, being part of the negotiating team for the South Pacific Zone and defending our policy in Geneva and New York. We worked closely with India then and engaged in the same critique of the nuclear powers. In those days we believed what we said.
India always explained that its forbearance of nuclear weapons for itself was not unlimited. By 1998, it moved concurrently with Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons, some 24 years after its first nuclear test. Bilateral nuclear deterrence has prevailed in South Asia since then, just as it did between the US and USSR for 40 years, justified by the US as the only stable way of securing global security.
So, India has effectively remained consistent with its national security policy for the past 40 years – foreswearing the nuclear weapon option for the first half and acquiring them during the second half.
This is not to defend or rationalise Indian strategic policy. We all aspire to a nuclear-free world – or at least say we do. It is simply to explain that India’s policy is as normal and (un)justifiable as US strategic policy. Being ‘refused the status of a nuclear weapon state under the terms of the NPT’, as the major powers have insisted, rests fairly lightly on India’s and Pakistan’s shoulders. Of course, Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is not allowed to be discussed in the Security Council at all.
So, when we apply our nuclear-free policy, we should be applying our policy with logical consistency, not with self-serving political considerations of voting with NATO when we think it is politically expedient.
And so, when the PM trumpets our nuclear-free policy as if he has just recently discovered its merits and as if we are leading the world, just point out to him that he should apply his considerable intellect to ensuing a logical consistency and a healthy political balance.
If he is going to be a world leader, he needs to understand the global village.
Published in Justice & Democracy by Kennedy Graham on Wed, September 30th, 2009
Tags: john key, Nuclear free policy, United Nations
More posts by Kennedy Graham | more about Kennedy Graham
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Great post, Kennedy. We see the same hypocricy from the nuclear club playing out over Iran. Perhaps Obama is sincere in wanting to make a breakthrough in weapons reductions, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Nuclear weapons by and large kept the peace in Europe and East Asia after the Korean War, with the Cold War reduced to proxy wars in developing countries. There is little doubt that one reason the USSR became willing to open up and reform was because the deadweight cost of competing in the arms race with the West was crippling it economically. The so-called “peace movement” rallied for decades against Western nuclear arsenals, but daren’t even try protesting in Moscow against the Soviet one, or Beijing when China acquired one.
The naive choice to step to one side in the Cold War, which the anti-nuclear policy effectively did, did absolutely nothing to contribute to nuclear disarmament or peace. It caused us to be the laughing stock of our two closest allies, who promptly politely ignored us, and rightly so.
Since the end of the Cold War, there has been substantial nuclear disarmament by all nuclear weapons states, except China. India and Pakistan raised the stakes with each other once religious fundamentalists had some of the reins of power in India, and Pakistan – always a religious state, responded in kind. Israel’s nuclear weapons capability has also been for obvious reasons, it is surrounded by enemies seeking to annihilate it. Two currently hold chemical weapons, and one is pursuing a covert “peaceful” nuclear programme.
I remember North Korea’s “peaceful” nuclear programme, until “ta da”, we’ve been fooling you all, and we have weapons, and we’re testing them.
We only have to fear nuclear weapons held by dictatorships, who seek to expand and who don’t fear the death of large proportions of their populations. Iran’s death worshipping military backed Islamists don’t, neither does the North Korean Orwellian gangster state. Russia has demonstrated it’s belief that it is entitled to use force against its small neighbours too.
Nuclear weapons will only go when:
- Russia and China have open liberal accountable governments that have little interest in projecting military power to their neighbours;
- Kashmir is settled, Pakistan becomes a more secular state with secure borders and no Islamist insurgency and India and Pakistan become part of a free trade and co-operation bloc with tightly enmeshed economic interests;
- The Israeli-Palestinian issue is settled, all Arab states recognise Israel as a friendly neighbour, with open ties of trade and movement of people, and Islamist movements in the region are irrelevant;
- North Korea finally collapses and is unified with South Korea peacefully.
The you have a chance. In the meantime, calling for any current nuclear powers, except the obvious rogue states of Iran and North Korea (neither of which is a legitimate regime), and possibly Russia (which faces no credible threats) to abandon nuclear weapons is nonsensical, and plays into the hands of their enemies.
Not all nuclear weapons states are morally equivalent.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@libertyscott
So only dictators use nuclear weapons and democratic nations don’t.
I take it you consider Harry Truman a dictator and 1945 American was a rogue nation.
If I was the leader of Iran I would be developing a nuclear weapon as fast as possible especially after watching what the US did next door to me in Iraq. A nuclear weapon is the only way a small nation can deter a larger nation or the UN from attacking it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
So only dictators use nuclear weapons and democratic nations don’t.
You got that from “We only have to fear nuclear weapons held by dictatorships, who seek to expand and who don’t fear the death of large proportions of their populations”
?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
StephenR
Posted October 1, 2009 at 9:40 AM
> > So only dictators use nuclear weapons and democratic nations don’t.
> You got that from “We only have to fear nuclear weapons held by dictatorships, who seek to expand and who don’t fear the death of large proportions of their populations”
> ?
are you suggesting that having a nuclear bomb dropped on your city is not something to be fearful of if the country dropping it has elections?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
The so-called “peace movement” rallied for decades against Western nuclear arsenals, but daren’t even try protesting in Moscow against the Soviet one, or Beijing when China acquired one.
The reason why is rather obvious. But you could also have said something similar about what happened in western countries alone, where the peace movement protested western nukes, leaving others to protest the nukes of communist countries, usually when their leaders visited New York or other western cities. These people, much like the ones currently protesting the presence of Amademajad at the UN, tended to be from the right. Why the difference?
Not all nuclear weapons states are morally equivalent.
This is certainly wrong at a moral level and also at a practical level where it leads to thinking that we should just get rid of the bad nukes, but leave the good nukes in place. If history has shown anything its that this approach has failed miserably. So why don’t both sides protest all nukes? I think they should, but I also think there is a greater moral imperative to protest the wrongs of one’s own government, particularly in a more free and democratic society. American’s protesting American nukes were called Soviet apologists. Far worse to be an apologist for the country you have some influence over.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Nuclear weapons by and large kept the peace in Europe and East Asia
Yup, same way the chilli powder I’ve been sprinkling in Hagley Park has been keeping it free of Elephants all these years.
The so-called “peace movement”
I have never been a member of any so-called “peace movement”. Just peace movements. Without the “spin”.
rallied for decades against Western nuclear arsenals
Yup. I noticed that too. We figure it is just plain hypocritical to be telling the other side to back off from MADness until our side has lead the way.
It hasn’t yet, so I’m going to keep protesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“It caused us to be the laughing stock of our two closest allies, who promptly politely ignored us, and rightly so.”
I don’t recall much laughing – there was political pressure, a certain amount of panic and a determined cold shoulder, and it wasn’t particularly polite.
“Nuclear weapons by and large kept the peace in Europe and East Asia after the Korean War”
“Peace” here is a term which includes the vicious suppression of people by dictatorial states justifying a hardline by pointing at the threat of the opposing evil empire. A weird thing for a “libertarian” to be justifying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
I will read this post tomorrow, it’s getting late, but I will leave you all with this thought.
The UN are going into Iran to see is they are producing Weapons of Mass Destruction, now why hasn’t the UN gone in to see if Israel has any WMD?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Valis: “where the peace movement protested western nukes, leaving others to protest the nukes of communist countries” except funnily enough, the protests NEVER had placards demanding Soviet nuclear disarmament. Funny that, but then Moscow did fully support the “peace” movement encouraging Western unilateral disarmament. The reasons are fairly obvious. It would have facilitated Soviet expansionism into western Europe and another North Korean adventure into South Korea, for example.
You don’t argue to disarm your own relatively free country without its aggressive totalitarian enemy doing so first. To seek that suggests you actually prefer the enemy to win. There can never be mutual disarmament when one side is a totalitarian state.
John Carter: Yes, I often noticed the peace movement demanding the Soviet Union withdraw from its imperialist occupation of eastern Europe and Afghanistan. Yes, absolutely no double-standards whatsoever. The “peace” movement always argued for peace between states but not within, never protesting for governments to stop killing their own people. You don’t get peace simply from having no wars between countries.
Given you have now said you wanted the West to disarm in the face of the USSR and China, you either wanted the Cold War to end rather differently or you’re seriously naive and thought Brezhnev was going to abandon nuclear weapons after NATO and France.
Turnip: Oh yes the predictable “what about Hiroshima/Nagasaki” argument. Japan was the aggressor, a brutal, relentless, unforgiving genocidal aggressor across Asia and the Pacific. The first and second use of nuclear weapons was intended to break the back of that campaign. You’ll have noticed the US did not repeat this in Korea, or since.
Kahikatea: What liberal democracy would initiate nuclear force against a non-aggressor?
Sam Buchanan: Yes you’re quite right, it wasn’t polite. What were these dictatorial states in Western Europe? Oh and you might have noticed that the other side was comprised of nothing but vicious dictatorial states, which were (and are) by a long shot far worse than the western ones. South Korea had some bloody history, but for the last 22 years has been a very stable modern open liberal democracy. Even South Korean under Chun Doo Hwan, Park Chung Hee and Syngman Rhee were positively open and free compared to the Orwellian nightmare of the other side. Would you have preferred to have let South Korea be at the mercy of Kim Il Sung?
Drakula: You know quite well Israel hasn’t called for any of its neighbours to be eradicated. Although you may choose to be wilfully blind to Ahmadinejad’s repeated pronouncements on Israel, and Iran’s repeated lies about its nuclear programme. Guess you think Iran and Israel are morally equivalent though.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The goal of the anti nuke movement has always been to have both sides disarm. Suggesting there was a preference for the Soviet block to win is a straw man that comes from your myopic belief that some nukes are good.
Re the peace movement’s “double standards”, you will sound more credible when you give up your own.
Re Japan, their back was broken before the the nukes were dropped. The best theory I’ve heard is that Truman did it to warn the Soviets. Make what you want of the morality of that, but don’t pretend it was needed to beat the Japanese.
Israel has a sordid history and plenty to answer for. Only a double standard re nukes could lead one to argue that theirs don’t contribute to instability in the Middle East. And need it be said yet again that Iran’s history would be very different if the west hadn’t intervened in 1953.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Valis
their back was broken before the the nukes were dropped
Iwo Jima – “The Allied forces suffered 27,909 casualties, with 6,825 killed in action.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
The prospect for having casualties of over a million on our side and in the tens of millions on the Japanese side in the planned invasion just might have had SOMETHING to do with the decision..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
The possibility of isolating and starving them into submission might have been considered. Could we have done that? Probably, but that sort of shift, from a shooting war to a drawn out siege (probably a decade or more) was unlikely to be accepted by Americans who had been schooled by the preceding years of conflict, to a level of unrelenting hostility – and in the face of Stalin’s rising red star it was not real palatable as an option.
It is easy to sit back now and say it was unnecessary to end the war quickly yet I don’t even know that it would have saved lives in total… and neither do you.
Warning Stalin was a realpolitik decision to be sure, but a quicker end to the war was needed because of Stalin. That left invasion or the bomb. Is it more cruel to starve a cow to death or to just shoot it in the head? Better not to have to kill it in the first place… but you have to choose the least bad. There is no “good”.
Lots of mistakes were made elsewhere… but one has to be careful when discussing Israel though, to remember the actions of the Arab league as well. That ongoing mess wasn’t exactly “one-sided”, though it seems so now.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I’ve read in several places (but years ago and can’t reference where) that Japan was willing to surrender conditionally before the bombs were dropped, the condition being that the Emperor not be removed from the throne. Is this not true? If so there was never a need for an invasion of mainland Japan, nor the nukes. If not, tough choice, but even containment might have been a better option than mass incineration of civilians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Libertyscott wrote: “Drakula: You know quite well Israel hasn’t called for any of its neighbours to be eradicated.”
Oh, so the fact that they’ve been progressively wiping Palestine off the map doesn’t count for anything, because they haven’t ‘called for it’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Thanks Kahikatea, I might add that that the US has not been even handed in the Middle East situation it has quite blatently armed Israel to the teeth with everything dirty including nukes and expects former Iraque, Iran and Korea to behave themselves!!!!!
Don’t get me wrong I don’t think that Iran or North Korea should have nukes, but not a word about the Israeli nuclear program until one of their scientists(forgotten his name)was found out leaking information to the media. He is now in jail in Israel somewhere.
US government hypocracy is just a little bit rich isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
It was actually France which helped the Israeli nuclear programme not the USA – as for arming Israel, you will find they built most of their own military equipment.
The Americans have financed Israel so they defend themselves without need for US help – but then they finance other states in the area as well. The do it that way so they can play peace arbiters – but they have not done that well so far.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I’ve also read similar arguments to Valis that nuclear attacks on Japan were unnecessary. I’m not sure how the simple fact of previous Japanese military aggression justifies a nuclear response, especially given that nuclear weapons inherently target innocent bystanders, resulting in largely civilian casualties. There certainly isn’t a convincing case even on the “balance of lives” front that Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented more killings than they perpetrated.
Any argument that some nuclear weapons are justified ultimately rests on the risk of their use. And I think America has shown us that it’s simply not possible to use them responsibly- thus only MAD doctrine can justify stockpiling nuclear weapons- and we saw how well MAD works in World War 1.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Ari
Nothing would now justify it, but we had been targeting civilians for quite some time in that war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
I think that there is a tendency on our part to forget just how violent war is.
This is an environment so contrary to our principles that it is almost incomprehensible in times of peace. Given that background, the only difference was the difficulty of achieving the horrific result. Which makes no difference at all in terms of the morality of the use IMHO.
The USA was looking at Stalin and Russia and calculating the effectiveness of a siege in the face of the risk he appeared to present. I don’t KNOW the answer Ari, but I don’t think that second guessing the people who were involved in that conflict is a fruitful thing for us to be doing. In the event of a similar “total” war, civilians would again be targeted, and not just by “terrorists”, but by all sides.
Which is why I am very keen to avoid such wars and support the ban on nuclear weapons ever coming to NZ, even for a visit… and support nuclear disarmament.
But back then? That was a different situation and none of us really have a right to second guess the decision. We didn’t spend years at war and fearing invasion.
The US is working to reduce the stockpiles again.. the Bush years are finally over. YAY!!
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
But back then? That was a different situation and none of us really have a right to second guess the decision. We didn’t spend years at war and fearing invasion.
Not just a right, but a duty! I do believe you have a point, but this is dangerous thinking if taken too far as it can be used to justify anything. Those who don’t learn from the past, etc. Surely we can factor in the difficulties that distance from events cause without abrogating our responsibilities to think critically about them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
My simple question is this.
Do the Green Party and its supporters support the US, UK and France destroying their nuclear weapon capabilities, in the absence of Russia, China, North Korea, India/Pakistan and indeed Israel (and Iran) verifiably destroying theirs?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
The goal of the anti nuke movement has always been to have both sides disarm. Suggesting there was a preference for the Soviet block to win is a straw man that comes from your myopic belief that some nukes are good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Valis: It doesn’t answer the question. The Western line has long been that unless reductions in other arsenals can be verified then there would not be reductions in their arsenals. You either support unilateralism or you don’t. If you support unilateralism, you support exposing relatively free open liberal democracies to attack. If you don’t then you can hardly complain about existing arsenals held by the US, UK and France, whilst there isn’t the slightest sign Russia, China, Iran or North Korea are willing to disarm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Valis: It doesn’t answer the question.
Seems clear to me, but to be even more so, I support multilateral and verifiable reductions.
You have the Western line right, but their actions have often not met their rhetoric. I’d say they think like you have implied, that nukes are just fine as long as the good guys have them. This has been taken to the extreme even of allowing nuclear proliferation to occur, despite that it is not possible to keep the bad guys from also obtaining nukes. In fact, the increased level of threat in such an environment only further encourages the bad guys to do the same.
The situation is not all the fault of one side. Ours could do much better too.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Liberty – Disarmament on BOTH sides is required.
Where did you get any other idea? It could not be from us.
Who is telling these lies?
I’d like to know THAT, if you can remember where it comes from.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)