Speculation: New Zealand - A change in no nukes policy?

Is Labour about to change the nuclear policy? Inquiries by "The Letter" reveal that the issue has not been debated within the party but in the Byzantine government of Helen Clark, that means little. Last week’s snap decision to send Te Kaha and an Orion to the Gulf war was not discussed. The Letter believes that a ‘finesse’ of New Zealand nuclear free legislation to enable a nuclear powered ship to visit is being seriously considered.

Consider the evidence. Labour wants a Free Trade Agreement [FTA] with the US and the cost is a change to the nuclear free law. Labour sent a frigate and an Orion to the Gulf and carefully refused to rule out assistance to a US/UN sanctioned strike against Iraq.

Those who say Clark would never make a change are precisely the same people who said Labour would never send the SAS to Afghanistan. Clark’s strategy has been to take the centre ground. How could National oppose a change? The Alliance party no longer exists. The Greens are no real threat.

The politics of a change in policy are compelling. The idea that Michael Cullen just let it slip that the nuclear issue is the stumbling block to free trade is silly. Ministers never just let things slip out. Labour is feeling out the ground.

The number one foreign policy objective of successive governments has been to obtain a FTA with the USA, the world’s largest economy. This week a letter from Robert B Zoellick, the chief trade negotiator, advised the Senate that USA was commencing negotiating with Australia excluding New Zealand - our worst nightmare.

As a minimum a FTA will cover manufactured goods. A firm like Fisher & Paykel that exports its special dishwashers and health products to the USA will have to transfer production to its Australian plants.

The Knowledge Wave Trust in its report of 8 October stated that “… a FTA with the US is a clear priority. The impact of Australia succeeding in securing a free trade agreement without NZ will be of similar impact to the UK entering the European Union in 1973.”

The government was surprised that Zoellick’s letter to congress included mention of New Zealand: “Given the integration of the economies of Australia and New Zealand, New Zealand has been advocating its case to the Administration, as well as to Congress, that a FTA with New Zealand would complement our FTAs with Singapore and Australia. We will be soliciting the views of the Congress on this matter as we move forward with the Australian FTA.” (See the whole letter on www.act.org.nz/zoellick)

The Labour government had been told that the FTA was going ahead with Australia and both Australia and the USA had said no to including NZ. Mr Stanley, the US businessman who heads the NZ/American Chamber of Commerce, said publicly that the Bush administration saw no prospect of an FTA while the nuclear issue was unresolved.

Senior officials believe that the unexpected inclusion of a reference to NZ is due to the repositioning of Te Kaha to the Gulf and Helen Clark’s careful refusal to rule out NZ joining a US/UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq.

The US is aware that the NZ government’s own independent inquiry headed by our top scientists found that the nuclear reactor on a ship was so small it did not pose any conceivable risk. Auckland hospital emits more radiation each day than the whole US fleet in a year!

The huge growth in trade between Australia and NZ since the signing of CER demonstrates how effective free trade is. A liberal FTA by itself guarantees 4% growth a year which is a doubling of income in 18 years. There is not a social issue – from health to the sustainability of superannuation – that would not be transformed by a doubling of wealth.

ACT MPs believe the ban on nuclear propulsion is absurd. ACT deputy leader Hon Ken Shirley is seeking to introduce a bill that amends the nuclear free law in NZ to allow nuclear powered ships to enter NZ waters.

You know, what NZ needs to do is buy two or three supersonic bombers and some tactical nukes. This would be enough of a deterent to keep away any but the most powerful of enemies, who are the sort that the ANZUS would leal with together anyway. It's the best defense alternative, as NZ just doesn't have the manpower or tax base to field a large modern army.

JMHO :o)

,,, the Aussies and the US have built a major military runway at Katherine, in Aussie's Northern Territories. This is quite a strategic asset and will prove it's worth in time to come as a medium to long range base. Aussie's F-111s are up for replacement. New Zealand's air strike capacity is mothballed.

A quickly deployed force is what New Zealand needs. Fast moving troop ships, more C-130s or an update of them, when applicable, and more than the 107 or so LAVs in use at present. I doubt there's money available, even out of the trumpeted $NZ2,5b budget surplus.

Klark should have honoured the contract in place for the cheap deal on F-16s we were offered. Anything that progresses from here should be in consultation with the Aussies and the US as back in the ANZUS days.

<< ..... what NZ needs to do is buy two or three supersonic bombers and some tactical nukes. This would be enough of a deterent to keep away any but the most powerful of enemies, who are the sort that the ANZUS would leal with together anyway. It's the best defense alternative, as NZ just doesn't have the manpower or tax base to field a large modern army. >>

A renewed ANZUS Treaty, expanded to include Singapore and Israel [With the US the only two other countries on Earth worth going to war with and for] and a fleet of 5-megaton-nuke-carrying slightly used ex-US Navy Tridents [A BIG stick] and a firm promise [Delivered quietly] to create huge glass puddles where Baghdad, Peking, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Jakarta -- or wherever -- used to be, should a single hostile foot be set upon New Zealand Territory or one of its Citizens harmed in any way by act of war.

'Cept for the SAS, New Zealand's army can go home and get back on the dole.

Between freezing works' killing seasons, anyway.

Or play with its air force's aeroplane.

Yo! Someone tell the American Green Party about this!

Oops, I forgot that anti-nuke people are as fanatical as the Taliban and just as open to reason. Sigh.

Mr Preble is being a bit hypocritical in this letter considering he was a cabinet minister in the government of the 1980's that implimented the no nukes ban that ended Anzus. I also think the USA should know who it's alies are - NZ has been supportive and contributed to every American led war without any payoff or benefit to it. New Zealand doesn't need billions in foreign aid to be an Ali of the USA because it an ali based on idiological and cultural similarity as are Britain and Australia. Punishing NZ by giving Australia a free trade agreement and excluding NZ for a relatively small idiological difference of wanting to keep itself nuclear free seems very harsh to me. Rightly or wrongly, NZ believes it shouldn't allow nukes into it's teritories and that was not an anti-american stance as proved by NZ's continued support of the USA in the gulf war etc since then. NZ stands with the USA on everything else. In my opinion NZ should have done everything it could to remain in Anzus as it was a benefit it had from being alied to the USA so strongly.

If A free trade agreement with Australia goes ahead without NZ, who knows how bad that could be for the NZ economy which is so strongly tied up with Australias. It would almost be like the USA having free trade between all of it's states but leaving one state out.

As for Richard Prebble, he is a politician and the only reason he would be revealing what the government of NZ was thinking about doing privately, would be to embarrass the government which will possibly change their mind about doing it. I am sure sending a NZ ship to the gulf or being supportive of America once again has nothing to do with trying to get a free trade agreement from the USA, as historically NZ has and always will be on Americas side and will contribute to a war on Iraq.

As a minimum a FTA will cover manufactured goods.

If NZ is relying on manufacturing its going to get its butt kicked.

Its still preliminary, but here is what I see. Malaysia and Singapore are going to go KABOOOOOM on the economic front. Its going to be the hub of Asian manufacturing. They are centrally located near Vietnam, India, and also have access to China and of course Indonesia.

Free trade with Singapore? Wow. Australia is going to get in on that deal also.

Welcoming Our Navy back into their ports will sit very comfortably indeed with most New Zealanders who remember their debt to Our Nation's WW2 dead.

Er....hmmmmm, personally I don't think we have any debt to the USA out of WWII. Am sure you already know Brian, New Zealand suffered most dead and wounded per head of population in WWII aside from Russia, even though no conflict took place within its borders. NZ also entered the war the same day as Great Britain, (September 3rd, 1939) while the USA sat on its hands on the sidelines, until it was attacked more than two years later.

Those socialist Zoolanders could go back to sails only rather than compromise their principles. When a severe pain evolves in the wallet, their principles are meaningless tripe

You didn't include the word "government" here. No worse maybe than those of your own country, non? Are you still smarting over the Rainbow warrior incident, and how easily those agents were caught?

<< .... I don't think we have any debt to the USA out of WWII ... NZ ... entered the war the same day as Great Britain, [Pretty bloody stupid, eh?] ... the United States of America [Although it meanwhile poured Hundreds of Billions of Dollars of the confiscated wealth of its -- and therefore of the world's -- most creative, innovative, productive and industrious citizens into arming once great Britain and to carrying that sorry socialist state on its strong and broad and courageous back -- and to arming and equipping the Soviet Union] had more sense (And a Constitution and Rule of Law!) and waited until it] was attacked more than two years later. >>

No one doubts New Zealand's bravery [Or, least we forget, Australia's!] and no one [Outside of a couple of Mad pommy UEnicks who also failed to note once great Britain's 20th century plunge into squalid irrellevence] has missed that New Zealand suffered more 20th century per capita war casualties than any other Civilized Western Nation.

But I was in New Zealand during World War Two and know as simple fact that the only reason there is a bloody New Zealand any more is the United States Marine Corps, whose 5th and 6th Divisions were billeted around my home and who, along with many of their buddies, suffered more than 90% casualties in places like Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima where they turned the Pacific War around and beat and thrashed and arse kicked Hirohito's mass-murdering Jap monsters back to the nuclear proving grounds [Of around forty-eight too few devices!] also known as the land of the rising sun.

Brian, firstly a polite request. If you are going to quote me, please do so without adding your own comments inside mine so that the quote ends up making no sense. Thanks.

You defend your countries initial unwillingness to assist western nations in a fight against the terrorism of the time, and then say that Marines into the Pacific saved New Zealand and Australia. If America had entered the war when other western nations did, New Zealand forces would not have been in Europe, North Africa and the Mid East when the Japanese threat emerged, but at home, ready to defend the homeland, there or in the Pacific. You surely must understand that when you transitted NZ, all its fighting men were already fighting anywhere but in NZ. If I was bombastic, I could say, oh, the only reason the US sunned itself for two years while other nations shed their blood for it, was for that very reason. Maybe the US owes a debt of gratitude to someone. Personally, I don't think the Japanese could have held New Zealand, or Australia, and certainly not both at the same time. If you had assisted us when the need was first there, who knows, maybe even the Atomic bomb drop would have been unneccsary.

'Cept for the SAS, New Zealand's army can go home and get back on the dole

Your personal opinion is noted. I also note New Zealand's unemployment rate is lower than in your own country.

I doubt NZ and Australia would have held off the Japanese for very long at all even with their armies back at home. The Japanese were much stronger and had already defeated greater countries defenses. I think we do owe a lot to the Americans who did save us, though you could say the Americans only did so because they were at war with Japan because Japan attacked them. The Americans wouldn't have come to our aid otherwise any more than they did France who was an historic Ally of the USA who had given them the statue of Liberty etc. Perhaps we just owe a lot to the Japanese leader who decided to attack the USA and so bring them into the war to save us all.

As for this quote "Cept for the SAS, New Zealand's army can go home and get back on the dole", I don't think the USA,or Australia for that matter should find it funny that the NZ defense forces have become so depleated since the USA broke it's defense pact with NZ. Considering that NZ fights in every war America leads, it was in the USA's interest to keep NZ's military strong. If you think about it, the USA always seeks Allys for its actions because it doesn't want to go it alone morally. The USA doesn't need help militarily but prefers to have it to add to the strength of their moral argument, and so keeping NZ strong would enable an Ally to always be able to help. The USA should really have given free planes etc to NZ and Australia, and then there wouldn't be only Britain and the USA flying over Iraq at the moment. The USA gives military aid to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Israel. It would be in their own interests to give it to Australia and NZ too who can't afford to buy high tech miliary hardware themselves, but would pay the price of training a pilot and sending him to war alongside the USA. Apart from US led wars, the NZ armed forces have only ever been part of UN peace keeping. Their only purpose for existing is to support the USA and UN. They couldn't defend us against attack.

I should have mentioned that the USA is owed a great deal of thanks these days for protecting the world. The UN doesn't have any real power because they can only talk, but the USA has the power militarily and they do a lot for the world. I know every small country in the world would expect the USA to do something if they got invaded by another country, including NZ. That is a high price to pay for the USA, who has to go to war all over the world for other countries. It is a high price to pay for the people living in the USA who know that their sons may have to go and fight in a war somewhere and maybe give their lives to save some other country and make the world a safer place. They pay the price also by becoming a target for terrorism and hatred from anyone who disagrees with them on how they go about protecting the world. They spend a fortune in Foreign aid to keep bad countries on side and giving them incentives to keep the peace. No other country does this, and we owe the USA a huge debt of gratitude. That is why I am glad NZ is pro American, and supports the USA in their efforts. Without the USA where would the world be?

If NZ is relying on manufacturing its going to get its butt kicked.

,,, yes and no. New Zealand can't compete on volume but it leads in a few categories of niche production, both on cost competitiveness and quality even when most of it's markets are at the other end of the globe.

The US can no longer rely on manufacturing as much as it did. Stanley tools and Buicks are made in China now and they're just two examples.

<< Brian, firstly [An ignorant, supercilious and arrogant demand.] If you are going to quote me, please do so without adding your own comments inside mine so that the quote ends up making ... sense [And being, therefore, easily identifiable as far too intelligent to have dripped with the vapid superciliousness that oozes from my pen.] Thanks. >>

The rest?

Envy motivated and hatred and rage-driven delusional bullshit.

Read some History and study some United States of America Constitutional Law and then don't bother getting back to me.

Cordially -- Brian

[Geez, shaggs, what passes for an eddjukkkashion down there doesn't improve, eh? Still turning out savants able to employ really big [Two sylable even!] words to verbalize the feelings aroused in them by those in gummint who set up the system and by that gummint's Goebells Institute graduate "teachers."

How awful when kids are "taught" History -- and all about gummint -- in sKKKools owned operated and staffed by gummint!]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.