Home

ACT & National Want US Nuclear Warships

Comment by Larry Ross, June 10. 2005

ACT and National are very keen to resume visits by US and UK nuclear warships, as the following article shows.
The following comments will refute Ken Shirley's main points and show the duplicity of National.

(1) Shirley is trying to fool people by only mentioning "nuclear ships". He knows only too well, that if he mentions "nuclear warships" New Zealanders are more likely to reject his argument. Also, there are no other kind of nuclear-powered ships in operation today except nuclear-powered warships.
By focusing only on "nuclear ships" rather than "nuclear warships" and claiming to excluding nuclear weapons, both ACT and National are trying to con the NZ public

(2) Don Brash said the NZ Nuclear Free Bill "under National, would be gone by lunchtime". He said this seriously, to three visiting US Senators. I think he meant it, and that clause 11 at least, which bans nuclear-powered warships,.
"would be gone by lunchtime" as he promised.

(3) National knows a majority of Kiwis support New Zealand's Nuclear Free Zone bill. In fact most people are rather proud they stood up to the USA on a matter of principle and won. Kiwis liked how New Zealand's new reputation and notoriety, brought us millions of dollars of favourable free publicity - and then the corollaries - increased tourism, increasing trade, increasing stature and diplomatic influence. The applause from around the world was the kind of music Kiwis like to hear. People liked our nuclear-free stand; they liked it's contribution to nuclear disarmament, and its reduction, however slight, to the risk of a nuclear war that could destroy mankind.
They liked all these factors, plus the most important fact - that New Zealand withdrew its participation in the nuclear alliance, ANZUS. We said "no" to nuclear war and "no" to a so-called nuclear defence. It was a real slap-in-the-face for Pentagon nuclear war strategists, and their resentment is still being felt. National has a very big task in trying to turn around this strong majority support for Nuclear-Free New Zealand. So they have developed a scheme that might do it.

(4) National has tried to end the nuclear warship debate - make it irrelevant - because they know popular opinion is against them. So they are proposing holding a referendum on what New Zealanders think about the nuclear vs nuclear free New Zealand issue - after the election if they are elected. Then they would make a decision. How convenient for them if people accepted their wish to shift the nuclear issues debate away from the election. Otherwise National might lose the election on the nuclear issue as they did in 1984 when David Lange promised to make all of New Zealand Nuclear Free if Labour was elected. Labour legislated and passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Bill in 1987, before it was elected for a second term.

National learned a valuable lesson - that a pro-nuclear warships and pro-nuclear ANZUS policy is a vote loser and National had little chance of getting re-elected with such a policy. So National embraced New Zealand's nuclear free policy and won in 1990. Jim Bolger then pledged "we will keep New Zealand Nuclear Free this election and the election after that." He did, but he's not the Prime Minister now.

The Prime Minister-in-waiting is Don Brash who promised to scrap the nuclear-free Act "by lunchtime". He's made it clear where he stands, but he also knows that it's a loser policy in New Zealand.

So he's decided to try and postpone the debate, in hopes he will become Prime Minister and is in a position to control the focus and much of the content and limits of the debate. He would also be in a position where he could influence the content of the questions to be asked in his proposed referendum - so as to get answers which can be used to support National's real nuclear policy. Many National MPs have spoken out in favour of scrapping NZ's nuclear free policy and returning to ANZUS and becoming again, a willing partner in any US war policies. National's Defence spokesman, Simon Powell told a National Party conference that New Zealand should be ready to go to war for our ally - the USA - if called upon to do so. This kind of blind loyalty to the USA - no matter what the consequences might be - is characteristic of the National Party and has been for over 50 years. They behaved the same way in the 60's when they said "yes" to a US request for NZ troops to help fight the Vietnam war.

I don't think the Leopard has changed its spots. I think National would effectively scrap the nuclear free act, by claiming nuclear ships (meaning nuclear warships) are okay, but nuclear weapons are still banned from NZ.
In practice the US neither confirms nor denies that nuclear weapons may be on a particular warship. So if National allows nuclear warships into NZ ports, they are effectively allowing nuclear weapons in also. They don't know and will not know whether nuclear weapons will be on a particular warship at any given time. They will simply accept US assurances. The US has stated several times, that they may rearm their warships with nuclear weapons at any time, particularly during what they choose to call "a crisis". National and ACT have both been told this many times.

So for ACT and National to try and focus the debate on nuclear-powered ships alone is a duplicious nonsense.
They know that can mean nuclear weapons will be brought into NZ ports - and the possibility of that happening, will make NZ a potential nuclear target - for potential enemies to strike at US ships, or the ports they use.
They know that return to ANZUS means return to a nuclear war alliance and that New Zealand would face a high risk of being drawn into a nuclear war. This is particularly dangerous today, as nuclear experts like Dr Helen Caldicott, predict a nuclear war during Bush's next four years. Nelson Mandella calls Bush the most dangerous man on earth.

People just don't realise that Bush has lowered the nuclear war threshold by claiming he has the right to wage pre-emptive nuclear war against any nation Bush thinks could be, or could become a threat to the US. He has named both non-nuclear and nuclear nations in his 2002 Nuclear Posture Review as potential nuclear targets. The US plans to make and test new nuclear weapons, and now gives local military commanders the freedom to recommend the use of nuclear weapons. The US is in the middle of an illegal war and occupation of Iraq, that they justified with a litany of lies in 2002. The US defied the UN, their own experts, and the advice of most friends and allies, by launching that illegal war.
The National Party would probably send NZ troops to support the US war in Iraq and accept again a very minor role in the US-dominated nuclear ANZUS treaty.

In one stroke National would destroy NZ's reputation, become the servant of US demands and 'requests' and make NZ an optional nuclear or terrorist target for any US enemy.

I havent given all the reasons why NZ should not repeal any part of the nuclear free Act. I will answer the other parts of Ken Shirleys release in Part II of this paper - to be issued later.
Also, see the other papers in this section and clic on "Nuclear Power" on the front page of this web site.

One important factor I will mention is that every New Zealander who wants to maintain the present Nuclear Free Act, must show support for the law. (1) By writing your approval of the act to the PM. (2) Tell other MPs how you feel about this and related issues. (3) Tell National and ACT MPs why they are wrong on the nuclear issue. (4) Give your electoral support to nuclear free NZ candidates in your area. Generally, become more politically active.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ACT want nuclear ships but Nats not supporting

Stuff, 10 June 2005

A ban on nuclear-propelled ships entering New Zealand waters would be gone by lunchtime
if the ACT Party has its way, but under National a referendum would be held first.

An ACT bill lifting the ban was drawn from a ballot yesterday and will be debated by Parliament.

ACT MP Ken Shirley said his member's bill would not lift the ban on nuclear weapons but would remove clause 11 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987.

This clause banned any ship that was wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power from entering New Zealand waters.

National deputy leader Gerry Brownlee said the party would not support the bill despite leader Don Brash once saying under National it would be "gone by lunchtime".

"We've made it very, very clear that we wouldn't entertain any change to the current law without reference to the public, preferably through a referendum, and we'll set the time for that," Mr Brownlee told National Radio.

"Mr Shirley's bill doesn't particularly enthuse us at the moment."

Mr Shirley said he was disappointed with National's reaction.

"It's hugely disappointing," Mr Shirley said.

"It's quite irrational to oppose it given the Somers report."

That 1992 report found that visits by nuclear-powered ships presented virtually no danger.

"The conclusion was there was no environmental risk or public safety issue to justify the ban," Mr Shirley said.

"I would have thought from a rational point of view it's a no-brainer."

Mr Shirley said nuclear technology was used in hospitals, engineering and other activities.

"Unfortunately it's become a bumper sticker and a mantra and people imply we are talking about nuclear weapons and we're not. No one is advocating deployment of nuclear weapons in this country."

Mr Shirley said nuclear weapons were abhorrent. He pointed out New Zealand was bound by the Rarotonga Treaty signed in 1985, an international agreement banning the weapons throughout the Pacific, and the matter was not up for discussion.

However the issue of propulsion was entirely different and if it was up to ACT the ban on ships would be gone by lunchtime.

"No question of that. We walk the talk, we mean what we say – that's the distinguishing feature of ACT, we are perhaps the only party that has the courage to challenge these mantras rather than perpetuate them.

"I'm hugely disappointed in National and indeed in Labour."

Mr Shirley said he was a member of the Labour government that passed the 1987 anti-nuclear legislation and the bill was in Richard Prebble's name. Mr Prebble later went on to lead ACT and is now one of its MPs.

"Both Richard and I are now saying 20 years later (the ban on nuclear propelled ships) was wrong. It needs fixing and this is a key issue for New Zealand's future."

Mr Shirley said he stood by other parts of that law.

Mr Shirley believes the ban on nuclear-powered ships was the final obstacle to New Zealand re-establishing participation in the Anzus (Australia New Zealand United States) defence alliance.

Re-establishing Anzus would put New Zealand on equal footing with Australia in negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States, he said.

But Conor Roberts, president of Young Labour, said youth wanted New Zealand to be nuclear free.

"Young people, in fact all New Zealanders, take great pride in the fact that our country remains 'Nuke Free'. It doesn't just add weight to the claim that we're clean and green, it's a symbol of national independence," he said.

"By introducing this bill, Mr Shirley is sending the very clear message, that ACT doesn't give a toss about the very things that New Zealanders hold dear."

Mr Shirley expected his bill – the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill – to get its first airing on July 27.

Members' bills are debated every second Wednesday while Parliament is sitting.