Now that America has scaled down its nuclear weapon capacity, and we have all seen how effective and safe (unless you live in Russia)nuclear power can be when used properly, the anti-nuke faction in NZ needs something else to cling to. I think the world agrees that nuclear weapons are a bad thing. If only we hadn't invented them. But we did, and I think the last thread of rationalisation supporting anti-nukes in NZ is the position that America was responsible for inventing such evil weapons therefore we will punish them by not letting them park their ships here. Of course, this fails to recognise that when the technology is there, someone else will find it (ie. Russia). It is a very unfortunate characteristic of many people that, when faced with having to admit one is wrong, one instead finds other ways of rationalising one's views. When it is to the detriment of one's country it is very unattractive.
Hopefully, something good can come out of the recent tragedies, in that by working side by side with the US again we can re-build our military relationship. It is only unfortunate that National is not still in power because that government would have been more enthusiastic about utilising such an opportunity.
Hope the drivers licence got safely renewed.
My point, however, was that it might have been do-able to find a compromise that would have saved face. Nether side would like it. The Navy wouldn't appreciate being secluded in the most out-of-the-way spot the NZ government can find. I can see it now:
Sailor complains,"But it's so isolated! We caan't get at your entertainment. Your booze. Your women..."
"You noticed that too, eh?", Deadpan Kiwi response.
And the PM that pulled it off would have to have a will of iron. She would have to hold the government together through the no-confidence votes (I assume you have those), and be resigned to the fact that she will lose the next election. If she could hold that time off for a couple years, though, it would be politically difficult for the next government to trash it. With tens of millions of dollars invested from both NZ and the US, and two years of construction, forcing the sailors off at gunpoint would be international political suicide. NZ would be skewered in the world court; base leases involve contracts - enforceable contracts, with penalty clauses. Not to mention the effects on trade, military cooperation, etc. It would be horribly costly to do, and few governments would be willing to pay the price.
The point being; if it were done right, it would be hard to undo, but, by that same token, there would have to be a strong NEED for it to get done in the first place. WW2 provided the fear that forged the first treaty. I don't know that there would be a strong enough imeptous to do it again. It's more likely that there will be coalitions (with a little 'c') that cooperated on limited objectives where their interests coincide. That probably precludes long term military cooperation beyond the inteligence sphere. It would be hard for me to explain to Joe Taxpayer why the troops that we're shipping over to fight with the New Zealanders in Timor are staging out of Australia because the Kiwis won't let our ships in their ports. Can you imagine Joe Taxpayer's response to a statement like that?
Of course, with luck, those limited cooperations will help to smooth hurt feelings on both sides, and mellow attitudes, to eventually allow other agreements to be made.
You want to hear something funny? As I was typing that last sentence, I was thinking about "hurt feelings", and I had an epiphany. I think I suddenly understand why there was so much passion about the whole issue. Why it's so hard to discuss, even now. It all revovles around hurt feelings and those stem from a fundamental mistake about each other's perceptions. Let me try to explain...
New Zealanders still don't understand why the US made such a big deal about what should have been a trivial issue, do they? To you, it wasn't really very important, a few minor bases in an out of the way corner of the world...Not much strategic importance, really. Especially when balance against NZ's long friendship with the US, Right? Oh, you expected us to be miffed - even perturbed, but you never expected what happened...
We went ballistic ape-sh*t on you! Insults, threats, bullyings! Economic sanctions and diplomatic denunciations. Must have shocked your shoes off, and hurt you terribly. Made you mad as a bee with a bear in it's hive too, didn't it? "Bugger off, then!", you shouted, "We aren't your lapdogs! If you can't respect our making one tiny little decision that you don't like, we don't need you." Heck, even today it's a touchy subject for Kiwis. An American who even mentions the policy is likely to get his head bitten off. I know from experience!
Have I described things accurately?
Assuming your answer is, "yes", take a moment to do something. Ask yourself if America's actions seemed rational to you? Reasonable?
Now throttle back the anger and bite off the hot retort, and think, "why not?" After all, we had been friends for decades, and the US had always seemed reasonable before that. Why the sudden attack of irrationality? It seems so...emotional...But why? It's almost as if the Americans took it as more than a geo-political decision; as if they felt personally insulted and hurt. But why?
I think I can explain, but I have to start with how American's saw the cold war.
To start; America was never in any danger of being invaded by the Soviets. Everybody knew that. Two big oceans, one of the finest Navies in the history of the world, and a plethora of Nuclear nasties, meant we had nothing to worry about from a Soviet invansion. Our freedom was safe, no matter what happened to the rest of y'all. The same was true of the Russians. Nuclear weapons have that effect. Russia could be effectively defended by one six year old girl and a potted plant...provided she was holding the plant over 'the button'. That is one of the things that gave lie to the Russian claim that the huge army they had in eastern Europe and wesern Russia was for "defence". Hmmm...Let's see... I need; one six year old girl and a rhodadendron...I have; the largest army in the history of man - one four times larger than all my enemies combined... Only a true pacifist wouldn't smell a rat in that.
I know this seems rambling; stay with me, please; it's important to understand how we saw things.
So. If the US is in no danger from the Soviets, and they are in no danger from us, why did the cold war exsist? The answer is that that army WAS a danger to everybody else. If you doubt that, ask a Hungarian, or a Rumanian, or (best yet) tell a Czech that the Soviets had no imperialistic intentions. But then jump back. Because he'll kick you so hard your cheeks will land in Australia.
But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you believe the Soviets were evil incarnate, or snuggly ticklemen. The cold war was based, like all military planning, on what they could do. To that end; the Cold War came into being. Or, I should say, WE BROUGHT it into being. The Cold War was all our baby. The Russians never wanted it and wished it would go away.
We told the Soviets, that if they invaded Germany, or France, or Japan, or Autralia...or even New Zealand, that we would launch a Nuclear attack on their country. Can you imagine what that conversation must have been like?
"Ivan. If you invade our friends, we will nuke your country."
"What?! You know we will retaliate with our weapons and destroy you!"
"I'm glad you understand, comrade. If you set one foot in West Germany, if you luanch one warship at Japan, if you so much as rub the fuzz off one Kiwi fruit, we will destroy both our countries."
"You lie, American pig! No one would commit suicide to ensure the freedom of another.."
"See the B-52s, tovarich? See the missile subs? We don't need them for us."
"But...But...."
You know the Soviets never did quite understand that. I don't blame them. It had never been done before. Oh, countries had made alliances before, and come to each other's defense. But no country had ever assurred the freedom of another with it's own existance. It had never even been concieved. That was the cold war. No wonder Kruschev pounded his shoe on the table and swore, "We will bury you!" The Soviets had the armies to win a hot war. The cold war kept them from doing that. It must have been frustrating.
And for two generations we lived with that. With the knowlege that Nuclear War lay over our heads like an executioners ax...and we had put it there. That we didn't HAVE to do this. The Soviets would have signed a pact assuring our safety in return for our neutrality in a heartbeat. And they would have honored it too. But that army remained. Not deployed to the rear for defense, but forward to the attack. With 24 hour readiness, attack plans made up (but no defence plans - our spies had found that much, the Soviets said they would "defend on the other country's soil"). Ready to attack as soon as the cold war ended. So we CHOSE the ax. We chose cold war.
I honestly don't think we ever expected to be thanked for it. MAD is too horrifing a thing to generate such emotions. It was almost too horrifing even for us.
But we never expected to be reviled for it. We never expected to have our sacrifices repaid with spit and curses. You called the cold war evil. You called us nuclear madmen. We had put our lives, the lives of our parents and spouse, the lives of our children on the line to protect your freedom. And you tolds us that our sacrifices were stupid. That our lives were evil. That WE were the threat to freedom!
And who said this? Not our enemies. It was the people who had been among the first to fight Hitler halfway around the globe. A people who, when the Aussies got scared and recalled troops to defend against the Japanese; left their troops fighting for another country's freedom. Because they understood that fighting for freedom - even another's freedom - is more important than safety! Of all the countries in the world YOU should have understood! You should have been our BROTHERS!
Instead, you rejected us. Told us to "go away" and stop "endangering" you. Blamed us for "Bringing the wrath of the Russians" down on you.
Can you imagine how hurt we must have felt? Can you imagine how betrayed?
It really doesn't matter much whether you agree with my discription of the cold war. It's what we saw. You can try to understand, or not, as pleases you. I understand now. I guess that's all I can really be sure of. I understand your anger. I understand your hurt. And I understand why.
And I've tried to share. That's all I can really do. I've sat at this terminal with my mind streching over concepts I had never thought of before, washed with conflicting emotions, as afternoon has turned into night, and I'm very tired. I feel emotionally numb. I think I'll head to bed.
Night's are very dark here, in the Colorado mountains - good for sleeping. The bulk of Pike's Peak shields us from the lights of NORAD. It would probably shield us from a nuke targeted on it too. Provided it was a ground burst, which it would have to be in order to take out the command center inside the mountain. We are even far enough from the Air Force Academy that we might survive the airburst that's targeted on it. Assuming, of course, that I have time after the flash to get my wife and I into the downstairs bathroom before the air-shockwave turns our front windows into supersonic shrapnel. But why am I talking about this morbid stuff? You probably don't even understand. You've probably never had you Father explain primary/secondary/tertiary blast radii to you. You'll probably never have to face explaining it to your children.
Maybe you made the right choice, my New Zealander friend. It would be nice to live that way. Not like us.
Not like us at all..
Goodnight Kiwigal. I'm very tired.