by Kennedy Graham
I supported Labour MP Phil Twyford’s Notice of Motion in the House last week.
Phil’s notice of motion asked the House to support three things;
- Recognise the historic opportunity to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament at the NPT Review Conference currently underway.
- Recognise the leadership on this issue by US President Obama; and
- Call on the NZ Govt to take an active role on this issue, drawing on our proud nuclear-free stance, and support the UN’s Five-Point Plan, including preparation for a Nuclear Weapon Convention.
These are all laudable aims however there is a tendency by some in New Zealand to over-advertise our credentials over nuclear disarmament
New Zealand was indeed path-breaking in the 1980s over our national nuclear-free zone, which went beyond the Latin American and South Pacific regional zones in banning nuclear-capable ships from our national waters.
I was, and remain, a supporter of that policy – I did my PhD on the subject and was part of the NZ delegation that negotiated the South Pacific zone. But there has always been a distinction between the strict nuclear-free policy here in our national territory and the ambivalent stance we take at the UN to a nuclear-free world. To this day we still vote along political rather than logical lines on nuclear disarmament at the UN.
Successive NZ Governments, under both National and Labour, have been ambivalent in their voting patterns at the United Nations on resolutions calling for a nuclear-free world.
They have on occasion voted in lock-step with NATO countries in opposing some resolutions calling for various aspects of a nuclear-free world, depending on which countries are sponsoring it.
NATO relies on nuclear deterrence to “keep the peace” and foresees retention of nuclear weapons “into the indefinite future”.
New Zealand, by contrast, is on record as being in favour of a nuclear-free world. Yet both National and Labour often vote with NATO at the UN in the mistaken belief that Kiwis back home do not notice.
In fact, we do.
Published in Featured | Justice & Democracy by Kennedy Graham on Mon, May 10th, 2010
Tags: NATO, Nuclear free NZ, Phil Twyford, UN
More posts by Kennedy Graham | more about Kennedy Graham
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
John Key will be a nuclear-free advocate, until he meets and spends quality time with a powerful world leader who is not.
flippity – floppity, flippity – floppity
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
I would rather New Zealand was known for having high principles and consistently defending them in international forums than our current soft approach.
-We have signed the International Declaration of Indigenous Rights…but we made sure it wasn’t binding first
-We are strongly opposed to commercial whaling… but possibly allow a few be killed if numbers are reduced
-We believe in upholding human rights….but wouldn’t attend the United Nations anti-racism conference
-We believe that climate change is real..but would rather wait to see what others do before substantial action
-We believe we should protect natural environments of significance….but mining little bits is alright
-We will withdraw our troops from Afganistan!….but perhaps not…
What you say is no surprise, Kennedy, it follows a sad curretnt pattern.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
“Recognise the leadership on this issue by US President Obama”
The Guy with over 5000 and the capability to destroy the world roughly 10-15x times under his belt – like hell! he might not even be in office in a couple of years
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
How about restoring the defunct Nuclear commission that Albert Einstein set Up?
Russia and the USA regardless of the leaders have clearly shown they are incapable of Nuclear leadership in any form
in fact why does there need to be a singular leader..?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Why not Kennedy Graham, stephensmikm?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Sure, He’s an ex- Lecturer from Cantab, if the international community accepted him He’d be a good candidate, maybe NZ should get him a Prof. title first
, hell, we could get Jeanette Fitzsimmons out of retirement 
but to be fair any person to lead the world on something like Nuclear disarmament should ideally come from a non-aligned nation
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
And of course Mr Graham MP, Has already worked extensively in the International field
I think you’re onto something Greenfly
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
And, stephensmikm, he’s an MP for one of the world’s most enlightened political parties, the New Zealand Green Party.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
And a member for one of the World’s best Parliaments
Win-win for everyone except some people in Nevada , North Korea and West China
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
You’ve taken the analogy too far stephensmikm. Our present Parliament is verging on corrupt. Certainly it is acting in an undemocratic manner. I thought you were aware.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
think about other parliaments in the world
I was also referring to the system of governance
but as I said win -win Mr Graham for Nuclear Disarmament leadership!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Yep – he’s Da Bomb!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Thankfully, ‘fly, not “la bombe atomique”!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
The only good thing la bombe has brought us, is the bikini.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Fly I wouldn’t don a bikini on Muroroa in case I glow red and set off all the guigercounters!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see you Drak!
Resplendent (and radiant) in your two piece!
Donning my shades now!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a non-issue nuclear disarmament really is.
How many deaths have been caused by these weapons?
They have made the world safer by limiting the
aggression of opposing states.
They protect any country with them from large
scale invasion. One H-bomd will wipe out any army
or fleet attempting an invasion.
The two places where they were used are now perfectly habitable.
No nation with them is ever going to deny itself the clear
benefits they bestow. Any reduction will be of obselete
warheads and delivery systems.
You lot are wasting your time and attempting to make
the world less safe as well as undermining freedom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)