"WHY KEEP NEW ZEALAND NUCLEAR-FREE?"

 

by Larry Ross
Secretary of the NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association   May 23, 2002

"Not since the dawn of the nuclear age at the end of World War II has the danger of nuclear war been greater" said Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, issued in a statement on April 9,2000 (www.wagingpeace.org) Many experts on nuclear issues and war probabilities share this view. The famous activist and author on nuclear issues, Dr Helen Caldicott, said the nuclear war risk is greater than at any time in the three decades she has been studying the issue. So it's not surprising that The Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists has advanced the hands of the Doomsday clock by 2 minutes, to signal the greater nuclear war risk. Canadian Senator Douglas Roche said in Canada's leading Daily, The Globe and Mail, on March 12 "The idea of waging nuclear war is taking flight....its time for Canada to blow the whistle on its U.S. friends"

Thus there is more reason than ever to keep, even strengthen, New Zealand's nuclear-free law. It is a way of saying that we don't approve of nuclear weapons and war plans.

The 1987 law bans nuclear warships and nuclear weapons from New Zealand territory and ports. The policy was implemented in 1984. with the election of the Lange Labour government. It bans New Zealand forces from working with nuclear-weapon-equipped forces. National became nuclear-free in 1990. The Greens, Alliance, New Zealand First, United - everyone except the dinosaurs agree that we should Keep NZ Nuclear-Free.

Although the cold war is officially over and Russia sometimes seems like an American poodle, there are still about 31,000 nuclear weapons in the world among 8 nuclear states. 5,000 of the Russian and American nuclear weapons are maintained on hair-trigger alert' ready for launch on 15 minutes notice. It can happen "by accident, miscalculation or act of madness" as President Kennedy told United Nations 40 year ago. It was true in 1962, still true in 1984 when we became nuclear-free, and its even more true today. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, 'this country is not for changing.'

Worse still, although both Russia and the USA agree to reduce their arsenals and redirect their missiles, the U.S. is going to keep its weapons in storage rather than destroy them. So it is really business as usual. Also, although the U.S. has supposedly removed nuclear weapons from their warships, they have stated that they can rearm them at any time. Under the U.S. policy of "neither confirm nor deny" they wont tell you if a warship is nuclear armed.

Warships, and allied countries that are part of the nuclear war infrastructure like gung-ho Australia, are potential targets in a nuclear war. Rather than security under the nuclear umbrella, nuclear allies increase their risk of being attacked. Obviously it is madness to again become a U.S. ally. Even a non-nuclear ally of the U.S. is like 'supping with the devil'. In a crisis situation the U.S. could pressure non-nuclear allies or "very, very, very close friends" like New Zealand, to accept American warships 'or else'. They say our policy is an "irritant".

The Americans have recently gone a bit crazier than usual over their nukes and imagining new enemies. Under the blanket of the "War On Terrorism" they've lowered the threshold where nuclear weapons could be used. They've started making mini-nukes (Still much larger than those used against Nagasaki and Hiroshima which killed 200,000), to penetrate deep underground bunkers, and may use these or other nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. They have named a so-called "axis of evil" Iraq, Iran and North Korea which may deserve nuclear bombardment for vague sins. Named as well in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) for possible American nuclear attention are: Russia, China, Libya and Syria. As President Bush has said, the 'war on terrorism' is likely to last a long time. If we were an ally, we would be expected to support the U.S. in wars against China and other nations. Thanks for asking, but no thanks, we'll stay nuclear-free.

The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review(NPR), as well as calling for new nuclear weapons, implies an end to the nuclear test-ban. It names possible wars where the U.S. could use nuclear weapons. On behalf of: Taiwan against China, Israel against the Arab states and for South Korea against the North. In other words nuclear weapons have been fully integrated into a whole spectrum of war- fighting capabilities for a number of potential wars. The Pentagon's Web site proclaims the U.S. intention to weaponize space and thus ensure "full spectrum dominance" on land, sea, air and space.

However the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Outer Space Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty, which the U.S. either signed or respected, bans these plans. These treaties represent 50 years of international effort. They are foundations of world nuclear disarmament and stability. However the Bush team plans to withdraw or reject them. Many states have expressed shock and disapproval at U.S. threats, weapon and war plans. The scrapping of the treaties will almost certainly start new arms races.

A few people, even some MP's, right-wing so-called 'defence specialist' nuts, and death wishers in New Zealand want to join this 'Rush to Doomsday'. They want NZ to become an ally of the U.S., scrap our Nuclear-Free Act, and welcome the nuclear death ships in our ports. Like Howard's Australia, they are ready to go 'all the way' with Bush's doomsday team.

However the majority of citizens, led by the Clark government trying to stay nuclear-free in spite of pressures, will agree that remaining Nuclear-Free and independent is best for New Zealand. We can continue to be a positive, helpful peacemaker, supporting the UN.

By Larry Ross
Secretary of the NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association

More from Larry Ross