by Kennedy Graham
I am pleased with the recent report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to Parliament, which calls for the New Zealand Government to support a Global Nuclear Weapons Convention.
I have a draft member’s bill along these lines as part of my Global Affairs portfolio on which I have been speaking around the country in the past few months.
There was some pressure on the Committee to lessen the level of action we recommended, and at one stage I circulated a draft Green minority report. But in the end this proved to be unnecessary and it is a testament to the ability of this committee to work together constructively that we were able to produce a report that is in standing with New Zealand’s international capability on progressing towards a nuclear-free world.
Being nuclear-free has been a defining feature of New Zealand’s global standing. We have demonstrated our ability to be independent in spite of pressure from ‘big powers’, and ability to maintain constructive international relationships without relinquishing our values.
Our 1987 Nuclear-Free Zone Act begins with the statement that part of its purpose is to “promote and encourage an active and effective contribution by New Zealand to the essential process of disarmament and international arms control…”
An active and effective contribution does not mean passively voting ‘yes’ at the UN when political currents suit. An active and effective contribution means to pursue what the International Court of Justice concludes of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation treaty: “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”
Not only is New Zealand obliged to pursue, and conclude; we have already taken a lead in the past on being nuclear-free, and we must continue to act accordingly.
In recent years it has been Costa Rica and Malaysia leading. In December ’07 they submitted the model Nuclear Weapons Convention to the UN General Assembly. Last year, they co-sponsored a draft resolution (A/66/142) entitled “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”. New Zealand voted in favour of the resolution, which passed by 127 to 25, with 22 abstentions. We showed a quiet display of independence in our passive ‘yes’ vote: the UK and the US voted against.
The select committee report recommends that rather than languish quietly and passively amongst the crowd of 127 ‘yes’ votes, New Zealand takes itself to the forefront. Fifty-four member states co-sponsored the ICJ resolution with Costa Rica and Malaysia. New Zealand should make that fifty-five, and should actively engage with Costa Rican and Malaysian efforts to advance the cause of an effective Nuclear Weapons Convention.
The nuclear-weapons states (the NPT five) currently possess over 11,000 nuclear weapons. The US and Russia have a pact to reduce their respective stockpiles to 1,550 each. The New Start (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) pact is premised on transparency and gradual, simultaneous, disarmament.
The Model Nuclear Weapons Convention would take this cautious, hand-held approach, and make it universal. Only when all are on board will nuclear disarmament stand a chance. Because many still hold deterrence to be a viable option (and so an external threat). A step-by-step universal convention will dismantle the idea that possessing weapons that indiscriminately kill and destruct is a viable and responsible way in which to hold power.
Kazakhstan has already figured that out. Kazakh President Nazarbayev closed the Semipalatinsk test site in 1991, just prior to gaining full independence after the fall of the USSR. The Central Asian Nuclear-Weapons Free Zone, encompassing Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan entered into force in 2009, in spite of the US’s vocalised worry that it would disturb ‘existing security arrangements’. Security, for Kazakhstan and its neighbours, evidently does not depend on the possession of nuclear weapons. Rather, Nazarbayev’s motivation in 1991 was security, to be secure from nuclear weapons and the destructive effects of their development and testing.
President Obama has made some scant but significant steps in moving toward disarmament. The US began enacting the START treaty before it was ratified, and in Korea earlier this year, Obama spoke of envisioning a world free of nuclear weapons.
The select committee report asks the New Zealand government to take a lead in making the most of this momentum. It asks New Zealand to adhere to the principles of our 1987 legislation, and it recommends that this government step up from general support to action on the international stage.
Let’s now translate that into action.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Parliament by Kennedy Graham on Fri, August 10th, 2012
Tags: Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Global affairs, International Court of Justice, Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear free, Nuclear Weapons Convention, START Treaty
More posts by Kennedy Graham | more about Kennedy Graham
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Lets not.
Deterence has worked extremely well for over 65 years and you want to role the dice again. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
New Zealand has far more important things that we need to focus on than this feel-good rubbish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7 (-7)
Thank goodness Kennedy was on that select committee and not OneTrack.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
If you mean deterrence has worked well for countries that possess nuclear capability to essentially do what they want to countries that don’t, then yes, deterrence has been an outstanding success.
Shame it’s been a bit shit for everyone else who want to defend their territorial integrity if they happen to be sitting on something the big boys want.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“Deterence has worked extremely well for over 65 years”
Yup – kept everybody in line. You never saw the USSR, for example, invading Hungary, Afghanistan or Czechslovakia, or interfering in Africa or the Middle East. Much too frightened of the possible response to go about warmongering. I won’t even bother to describe the incredibly peaceful activities of the US, France, China, Britain and others, suffice to say, the nuclear deterrent was so successful these nations barely bothered to spend billions building the biggest conventional armies in the world.
Note that since nuclear weapons were invented in 1945, there has NEVER been a war between Mongolia and Ecuador. Not once. What other period of history has been so peaceful?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Has anyone ever succeeded in getting the cat back in the bag?
It’s not going to happen, nuclear weapons are a horror for some poor unfortunates in the future, all we can hope for is that it isn’t us.
We can’t un-invent things.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
They can’t be univented, but they can and should be decommissioned – swords into ploughshares.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Correct. That’s why every man, woman and child in this country has a stock of mustard gas under their beds. We can’t uninvent things, so there’s no point trying to ban, regulate or control them, or reduce their numbers or availability.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Sam, you seem detached from reality and keen to attribute traits to our species that simply don’t exist.
If you reduced nuclear weapons to 40 for each side they would still have the ability to kill off hundreds of millions of people in the blink of an eye.
You seem to think that removing the ‘bouncing rubble’ aspect of nuclear war will make a difference.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Sam I must have missed all the wars between the nuclear powers US, Russia and China over the last 60 years. For some reason you didnt mention them. Of course, not to forget World War III. What happened with that then. Oh thats right it never happened.
And Israel is extremely glad they have nuclear capability (thats the rumour anyway). The day after they lose that, they will be gone – Iran will be in to them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
What a bizarre comment.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
I think every country should be given nuclear weapons so there’s never a war again.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“I must have missed all the wars between the nuclear powers US, Russia and China over the last 60 years.”
Can’t recall those nations ever having a real war before nuclear weapons came along either. There was some Russian intervention in Turkestan in the 30s and a brief US intervention in Russia around 1919, but no full-blown wars.
“Of course, not to forget World War III. What happened with that then.”
You’ve missed a few other wars that didn’t happen. Most of the wars that didn’t happen didn’t happen before 1945 – historical fact.
Can’t quite imagine Iran’s not particularly impressive armies (Iran’s military spending is about half of Israel’s) pouring through Iraq and Jordan to get at Israel. But presumably you’d support Iran getting nukes – to ensure a deterrent?
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
There is a lot of propaganda about the use of nuclear weapons, disturbingly, much of the past ‘restraint’ may have been based on irrational fears and overstating fallout problems.
For example, the famous “nuclear winter” scenario is a myth, it wouldn’t happen, and the effects of radiation exposure (unless initially fatal) are greatly overstated. Basically, if you survive the first 2 weeks after a nuclear exchange, you will likely not have any long term radiation issues, Hiroshima survivors have proved this reasonably conclusively (and that bomb while small was still relatively ‘dirty’).
Nuclear war is an awful prospect, but as technology advances it is going to become more of a problem, not less.
Disarmament of such powerful weapons is not going to happen on a world scale, human society will not ‘progress’ fast enough to mitigate the advance of technology, so even if some nations disarm, others will not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Gotta learn to love the bomb.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We’ve got to accept that we are an extremely destructive, war like species and then manage that reality as best we can.
Holding out for some utopian consensus is not going to happen – ever.
Lets just hope the “God particle” research doesn’t lead to an even worse military application………
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
“We’ve got to accept that we are an extremely destructive, war like species”
I’m not.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
I’m not.
And that is exactly why this will never be resolved – denial.
You seem pretty aggressive to me.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
“You seem pretty aggressive to me.”
Eh? Based on what?
The simple fact is, I feel no inclination to make war or run around destroying things. Therefore dubbing me a member of an “extremely destructive, war like species”doesn’t make much sense.
If you think I’m aggressive, I’m not surprised you think the human race is warlike and destructive. Some people seem to genuinely believe everyone around them is ready to lash out at a moment’s notice, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gee Sam, I guess I was basing my opinion on the overwhelming evidence from human history.
But sure, it is possible you are Jesus (I guess).
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Managing the reality is exactly what Kennedy is on about. You’re alternative seems to be to do nothing.
I suggest that we prepare our country for a post nuclear war world, after all, nuclear war is far more likely in the short to medium term than the effects of climate change.
Nuclear weapons are primarily political weapons, the political power a nation gains from them will never be given up. And like I said earlier, removing the ‘bouncing rubble’ aspect of nuclear war is hardly comforting.
Moscow getting hit by 3 warheads instead of 10-20 isn’t going to make any difference for the unfortunates in the city.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“I guess I was basing my opinion on the overwhelming evidence from human history.”
Gosh, I wasn’t aware I featured heavily in the annals of human history. Or perhaps when you said ‘you’ you were using it as second person plural, referring to the human race? Are you not human?
And are you really of the opinion that Jesus was the only peaceful person in history?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
We’ve actually managed nucs better than climate change so far, if sometimes only by accident. Nuclear war is at least still an “if”; climate change is locked in, with a commitment to more that could be avoided certain instead to occur as well. If you’re going to be morbid about the future, climate change is still the better bet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What scares me is the possibility of a nuclear war resulting from the fighting that is likely to arise due to climate change, peak oil, peak gas and ocean acidification. Steps to shift our economy away from fossil fuels and to renewables will help us survive that future as well as helping to prevent it.
The NACTs are of course moving in the opposite direction.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Gosh, I wasn’t aware I featured heavily in the annals of human history. Or perhaps when you said ‘you’ you were using it as second person plural, referring to the human race? Are you not human?
It’s not me that has the issue of understanding what we are.
Personally, I believe the most dangerous people on the planet are the ones that claim they are ‘good’ and free of the desires or potential for tyranny.
History is full of those too.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Or the one in whose name others would rule.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Richard Dawkins?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Nuclear weapons are political weapons.
The Cuban missile crisis wasn’t a military crisis, it was a political crisis, people in the American administration of the time have even (now) suggested that the missiles on Cuba didn’t give the Russians any military advantage at all.
Yet the world was almost thrown into nuclear annihilation and it was much closer than people realise, (it came down to the decision of one Russian submarine).
I fail to see how nuclear disarmament can happen in anything other than symbolic gestures that have no connection to reality or real safety.
The Cold war has been over for a long time, yet nuclear weapons are still on a hair trigger. This is because they are a political weapon primarily, they actually have no military application because it is impossible to use them with any strategy that enables victory.
I think misunderstanding these horrible weapons and pretending we can reduce the hazard is more likely to make things worse, we can’t un-invent them so what the hell is the point in pretending we can make the risk go away? A false sense of security is no security at all.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I don’t know what you are on about, Shunda. You accuse me of being aggressive, which you somehow think is related to the issue under discussion, then go off on a tangent with silliness about me being Jesus. Why exactly do you think I’m aggressive and what has this to do with nuclear weapons?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@OneTrack
I must have missed all the wars between the nuclear powers US, Russia and China over the last 60 years.
Wow. I think you need to read up on the history of the Cold War.
Here a tip: Proxy War
And Israel is extremely glad they have nuclear capability (thats the rumour anyway).
Not a rumour at all. Revealed in 1986.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gregor
Yes, but they werent directly at war against each other and they werent using nuclear weapons, which is what I thought this post was about. Which reinforces my argument that the existence of nuclear weapons has helped keep the major powers away from each other. I am not saying that they have stopped all wars ever. That might be a bit much to hope for.
You mentioned the cold war. It was cold because of nuclear weapons.IMHO of course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Reducing the number of nuclear weapons has to be a good thing. It costs money to keep these weapons in good condition and secure, so the fewer there are, the more effort can be put into preventing those from falling into the wrong hands or being involved in an accident.
If we ever detect a killer asteroid, we may be very grateful for keeping a few operational bombs. However this is not a reason to avoid supporting the Global Nuclear Weapons Convention.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@OneTrack
Which reinforces my argument that the existence of nuclear weapons has helped keep the major powers away from each other.
Possibly. My counter position would be that nuclear weapons have in fact facilitated major power meddling in other nations affairs.
Furthermore, history would tell us that the only time major powers come into conflict is when they share the same geographic space. So while the Damocles effect might stop China and Russia squabbling over their shared border, any theoretical lack of the nuclear option wouldn’t really affect the US being that they are the sole major power in their hemisphere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some interesting reading here about the types of weapons in service in USA
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
and if you feel like viewing the effects, you can drop one on a NZ city of your choice here
http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html
Scary stuff, yet you also have to marvel at the science behind making them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)