NZ has an anti-nuclear stance which
derives from a Labour led campaign against nuclear propulsion and weapons. In fact, we have legislated to make New
Zealand a ‘nuclear free zone’ – New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms
Control Act 1987.
In 1987 Labour passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act. In a largely symbolic act, the United States Congress retaliated with the Broomfield Act, downgrading New Zealand's status from ally to friend. David Lange stated that if the security alliance was the price New Zealand must pay to remain nuclear-free, 'it is the price we are prepared to pay'. In 1989, 52% of New Zealanders indicated that they would rather break defence ties than admit nuclear-armed ships
My question is this: If NZ are sincerely against
nuclear weapons, why do we provide support to the US whom we know has nuclear weapons
and has explicitly declared that they will use these weapons against nations
who fail to abide by the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Additionally, the US
were the intiators of having such a Treaty yet they themselves have failed to
comply with its terms. NPT signatories are “not
supposed to build and maintain such weapons in perpetuity. Article VI of the
treaty holds that each state-party is to pursue negotiations in good faith on
effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early
date and to nuclear disarmament” (see:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat)
The US has nuclear weapons and continues to
maintain and modify them citing the reason is to provide reassurance to their
allies and friends against any potential nuclear attacks from other nations.
The worry is that recent reports indicate
that the US and Israel are preparing to go to war with Iran. We cannot rule out
that these countries will not use nuclear weapons during combat, since this
will depend on whether or not the US determine that Iran is in breach of the NPT
(since Iran is a signatory to that treaty). Such a tactic would not come as a
surprise to some critics of the US who suggest that there is evidence nuclear weapons
were used in both Iraq and Afghanistan. (See: http://pakconnects.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/nuclear-terrorism-usage-of-tactical.html)
My point is this: NZ prides itself on many
things – but one area in which a significant majority of NZ are united is our
anti-nuclear stance. It is hypocritical then, that our government would provide
support to a military agenda that would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons
in future wars (despite the fact that the US are a signatory to that treaty). Also
remember that the US expelled NZ from the ANZUS treaty for not allowing the USS
Buchanan to enter our waters because the US would not declare if it had nuclear
weapons on board. Notwithstanding that the US were well aware of NZ’s stance
and used this occasion to test the policy, which resulted in a political
tantrum analogous to the behaviour of a two year old denied a lollipop. Our
government is doing all the groundwork, and making the sacrifices to improve
diplomatic relations between NZ and the US even though it was the US government
who disrespected our democratic stance on anti-nuclear policy.
My concluding remarks are that NZ ought to declare
itself a neutral state. This does not amount to disbanding our own defence
forces. The Swiss and Japanese are clear examples of neutral states that have
retained a defence force, and international law does not prevent a neutral
state from resisting attempts by belligerent militaries to invade a neutral territory.
(see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(international_relations)
(see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(international_relations)
NZ becomes nothing more than a hypocritical
backwater if it continues to support the US in its military crusade for global
domination. The time for neutrality is now.
