Limiting ban to weapons a naive ploy

Comment by BUNNY McDIARMID*

The National Party's credentials as a government in waiting risk being seen as flimsy - just like its understanding of our nuclear-free legislation.

New Zealand's nuclear-free status cannot be reduced to a bargaining chip in a free-trade deal with the United States, or become a tool to boost National's political fortunes.

Our nuclear-free legislation is there to promote security and global nuclear disarmament - not the survival of National.

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons have not become safe overnight because National wants a free-trade agreement with the US. The party's weekend agreement to change our nuclear-free legislation so that "safe nuclear technologies are permitted" is nonsense.

Apparently this may include nuclear vessels built to so-called safe specifications. Why doesn't it come right out and say what it means instead of couching it in ambiguous terms?

National wants to dump the nuclear ship ban because it wants to get back in the good books with the US and hopefully score a free-trade deal into the bargain.

"Safe" is not a word used when dealing with nuclear technologies; it is widely accepted that there is no threshold dose of radiation that is harmless.

This means that any radiation dose carries with it some risk of harm to your health - it's an invisible carcinogen - and, therefore, the exposure is not acceptable unless there is a demonstrable benefit.

We accept the risk we take when having an x-ray or even flying because of the perceived gains. Is National really saying that it hopes a free-trade deal is worth the risk of opening up our ports to nuclear-powered ships?

And as for ships being built to "safe" specifications, no nuclear-powered ship can be guaranteed to be safe and it is foolhardy to claim otherwise.

Last year the destroyer HMS Nottingham, with all its modern navigational equipment, ran aground in the Tasman. The reason was human error.

International statistics show that up to 80 per cent of maritime accidents involve human error. One of the most critical in the past few years was the Russian nuclear-powered and armed submarine Kursk, which sank in deep waters near the Norwegian fishing grounds.

At last count the US had lost two nuclear reactors at sea and a number of nuclear weapons as well.

Accidents do happen and an accident with a nuclear-powered or armed vessel is likely to be a lot worse than with a traditional vessel. So why take the risk when the consequences for New Zealand's health and economy could be so devastating?

National's suggestion that we could simply take out the ban on nuclear power but leave the ban on nuclear weapons is naive and fails to recognise the broader disarmament agenda and obligations that our legislation addresses.

One of the most significant concerns in terms of nuclear weapons proliferation today is the covert use of peaceful nuclear programmes to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. This is the case with both North Korea and Iran.

Furthermore, it is impossible to separate the issue of nuclear-powered vessels from nuclear weapons, given that the only nuclear-powered vessels today are military ones.

National's Dr Wayne Mapp has asked, "why have such a policy when there are no nuclear weapons on ships and the Cold War is over?"

Does he not realise that not since Ronald Reagan's Cold War days has the US defence strategy placed such an emphasis on nuclear weapons?

I can agree with Bill English questioning one thing - is our legislation still in New Zealand's interest?

National seems to have gone straight to agreeing that anything in the US interest must be in ours. Given that the big security issue of today is preventing nuclear terrorism, it seems to be entirely logical that we would maintain our nuclear-free status as our contribution to this effort.

It is the US that is being inconsistent with its commitments. If you are suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, you are liable to be invaded by the US; if you ban nuclear weapons from your harbours, the Americans will refuse to trade with you.

Our legislation does not discriminate between good and bad nukes. It not only serves our oself-interest in eliminating risks but is also a practical act in support of the global agenda for nuclear disarmament by all countries.

Where is National's analysis about whether the same threats, security concerns and interests apply today as in 1987?

The 1986 New Zealand Defence Review cited nuclear war as the greatest threat to New Zealand. The G8 Summit called the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons the single most important threat to peace and security today.

Most New Zealanders still think that maintaining our nuclear-free status is the safest option. We may be small but the world has got smaller in the past two decades.

National should think carefully about whose interests it puts uppermost in its quest to become a bigger player. The truth may be that our nuclear-free legislation is more relevant than it is.

* Bunny McDiarmid is a Greenpeace New Zealand spokeswoman.