Home

Helen Clark Emphasises Labour's Nuclear-Free Policy

by Larry Ross, September 13, 2005

In spite of National hecklers causing her to cut short her speech, Helen Clark emphasised her party's nuclear-free
message to Canterbury University students today September 13.

I hope there is still time for this message, and for the range of nuclear issues and consequences if it is changed, to be communicated to voters, so that they take it into account when voting - as they did in 1984 and 1987 when Labour treated it as an important issue.

As mentioned in my September 7 posting, previous Labour leaflets circulated to homes, omitted this important issue

In fact nuclear issues, and the dangers of a nuclear war, are more important in 2005 than in 1984 when Labour first used this benefit during an election.

NZ media were a bit more honest then and more accurately reported the dangers of nuclear war under US President, Ronald Reagan. People were better informed. Today, the NZ media is much more under foreign control. Most openly support the Bush Regime and illegal war on Iraq. That means that much of the real news about nuclear dangers under Bush and the extremism of the Bush regime is either suppressed, not mentioned at all, or completely misrepresented. The people are misinformed and kept in the dark about real news and nuclear dangers in particular.
.
American Neoconservative Republicans under George Bush have very definite war plans. They planned to wage war on Iraq well before the Twin Tower attack on September 11, 2001. (9/11) The 9/11 attack was the excuse the US used, even though the previous US ally, the Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein, had no WMD, no plans to attack the US or UK, and no terrorists or links to Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden. Bush, Blair and Howard and their cronies knew or suspected as much. Nevertheless the US proceeded with their war without UN approval. People who wished to be informed, knew the truth. That's why the protests were so huge. But the media chose to present Bushspeak and his war lies, as gospel truth. Naturally a lot of the public are still confused and uninformed about the issues and implications of the Bush regime, the Iraq war, future war plans and the new dangers of a nuclear war.

Although the Katrina hurricane may have caused a delay, there are many indications and emails from US contacts, that Bush plans a similar phoney war on Iran and perhaps Syria. He is using as justification, the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and the US claim that Iran and Syria are helping opponents of the illegal US and UK war on Iraq. The US, UK and Australia label all opponents of their war "terrorists", just as opponents of the arms race and cold war, were once called "communists".

If the much-predicted new 'terrorist' attack on the US suddenly happens, Bush might use it as a trigger for a US-led war on Iran, just as he used 9/11 as a trigger for a US-led war on Iraq. It would lift Bush's declining popularity, cause people to sideline Katrina, and remobilise American support for a new war - whoever Bush chooses to accuse, however fictitious and exaggerate it may be. As a bonus Bush would be able to legislate draconian new "Patriot" laws which will stifle dissent and enable many more steps to be taken toward the emerging new American fascism. This is also happening in the UK and Australia..

The US has the UK and Australia as 'allies' and made their leaders co-conspirators telling a litany of US-invented lies to fool their publics into giving support for the very dangerous, barbarous, and totally unjustified war
on Iraq.

Naturally they want as many allies as possible for this kind of criminal enterprise. That helps make it seem legitimate and a valid and necessary thing to do, to die for and send our sons to die and be wounded for.

This includes returning vets contaminated by depleted uranium weapons. Just as many of NZ's Vietnam vets were returned as US Agent Orange victims. And now many of their children, and grandchildren to come, suffer diseases from their inherited Agent Orange-damaged genes. So it is with US and UK troops exposed to D.U. weapons residue.

Our traditional allies - the US, UK and Australia, want New Zealand to join them in fighting in Iraq, and anywhere else the US chooses to wage war. Labour and The Greens say "no". National and ACT say "yes".

People must realise that far more than just New Zealand's nuclear-free policy is at stake. National wants New Zealand back in a Western military alliance, fighting beside our friends and allies, just as New Zealand has done in the past. That means US warships in our ports and NZ troops sent to fight in any US-led wars. No questions asked.
Many National MP's have said this and been very willing, even keen, to go against the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders. The question of the morality, legality, potential costs and consequences, nuclear war dangers New Zealand's real interests, etc, is of little or no interest and not even discussed.

However the cost and consequences of returning to this traditional behaviour is greater than ever before.
The cost in lives, wounded, armaments and related costs could be much larger. Nuclear warships carry nuclear weapons during any war (you wont be told), which make New Zealand a potential target. If it gets to the level
where nuclear weapons are used, and NZ becomes an actual target, the potential loss of population and property is unlimited. The suffering would be immense. Our agricultural industry would be destroyed, as would our reputation for some independence. NZ could not expect any relief from overseas, as many other countries would also be directly effected.

A very strong case can be made that if National wins the election, the nuclear free laws will soon be gone, if not "by lunch time" at least by "dinner time" or just ignored; nuclear ships will recommence visits to NZ ports; ANZUS or it's equivalent will be restored; NZ combat troops will be sent to Iraq and likely to other wars started by the Bush Administration, such as wars on Iran and Syria. The costs and consequences for New Zealand could be quite severe and long-term. If Dr Helen Caldicott is right in her predictions of a nuclear war initiated by Bush in the next 4 years, the world may suffer dire consequences. New Zealand as a restored nuclear ally and nuclear warship port would be directly involved , even as a potential nuclear target. The so-called free trade agreement with the US is used more as bait to get NZ to change it's policy, rather than promising any serious trade benefits.

Labour's independent foreign policy and nuclear free status, means we would be very unlikely to participate in any new American wars, especially a nuclear war. New Zealanders don't realise how lucky they are with the nuclear free policy, even though they are constantly being reminded of this by overseas visitors.

I hope that Labour and the Greens do not miss the opportunity to use the nuclear free issue during the 2005 election.

Now that they are polling below National, Labour needs to remind the 70% of the electorate who like the nuclear free policy of this important point of difference between Labour and National.

New Zealand may face a much darker future, if these benefits are swept away.