Peace
Researcher 28 – December 2003
Peace Researcher would be remiss if we did not comment on the recent and continuing kerfuffle over our sacrosanct nuclear-ship ban. The ban is written into New Zealand law – the 1987 Nuclear-Free-Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, with Clause 11 being the “vulnerable” point of recent attack by various folk of Rightwing persuasion. One might argue that the demise of the former National Party Leader, Bill English, was due in large part to his brash (pun intended) and bumbling suggestion that the Government should invite a US warship to visit our ports. His mistake was in trying to make an impossible distinction between non-nuclear and nuclear US warships.
Clause 11 of the Nuclear-Free Act prohibits entry of nuclear-powered warships into our internal waters (but not the outer Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ). The prohibition on nuclear weapons is covered in other clauses (including one that permits US military aircraft to transit Christchurch International Airport under the infamous “neither confirm nor deny” nuclear weapons policy). Over the years Clause 11 has been seized upon as the weakest point in the Act – a place to make a wee change that would please the US government, even just a tiny bit.
In fact, Clause 11 is not a minor matter, either in law or in the minds of New Zealanders. Back in the early ‘90s, the then National government commissioned a Special Committee of three “experts” to review the safety of nuclear-powered ships. Their highly biased 1992 report gave such ships the thumbs-up, but the Government dared not use it to remove Clause 11. They shelved the expensive report. And to this day the Nats claim to have no intention of dropping New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy, although they are reviewing it. Just what that means in a party polling no higher than 30% and wracked by internal turmoil as I write this, is anybody’s guess.
It is worth commenting that eliminating Clause 11 would not change anything in our relationship with the US. The reason is simple: few US warships are nuclear powered and ALL significant US warships and submarines are nuclear-weapons-capable. Furthermore, they all operate under the “neither confirm nor deny” nuclear weapons policy which New Zealand simply will not accept (except for aircraft, see above). End of story.
Things nuclear do tend to generate considerable media interest, and that’s a good thing. Even a storm in a teacup, which the Clause 11 issue seems to be, will create headlines that are sure to fan the anti-nuclear fires in the vast majority of New Zealanders.
There is also the matter of the actual safety of nuclear-powered ships. They are not safe, either in port or on the high seas. Nuclear reactors are inherently prone to serious problems due to their complexity, the presence of highly radioactive fuels and wastes, and the inevitable deterioration of containment materials over time and under the relentless assault of radiation. Because nuclear-powered warships are controlled by the military we ordinary folk are almost completely insulated from the reality of operating them and the accidents and faults that are inevitable. The only ones we hear about are the ones that cannot be covered up.
For example, at a Virginia shipyard in the US, a fire broke out on a nuclear-powered submarine near the reactor, in August 2003. Four workers were injured. The USS Florida is 20 years old and is being re-outfitted and refuelled for up to 25 years of additional service. This was not a “nuclear” accident but it could easily have turned into one adjacent to the densely populated eastern seaboard. Nuclear-powered vessels are banned from New York harbour and many other US harbours for safety reasons.
British nuclear submarines have had a terrible time in recent years. You may remember the adventures of the HMS Tireless, which spent 12 months undergoing repairs in Gibraltar for a leaking coolant system. In May 2003, this same hapless sub struck a “free floating object” (a fishing boat perhaps?) and sustained minor damage somewhere in the north Atlantic. It hobbled into Faslane in Scotland for repairs. Of course the public is always reassured that “there were no implications for nuclear safety”. That is a veritable mantra of the nuclear industry, both military and civilian.
The Tireless incident was the third such underwater collision by a British nuclear submarine in three years. It turns out that trainee commanders were responsible for the subs, at the time of the accidents off the coast of Scotland. Some officers were court-martialled for their ill-fated attempts to manoeuvre the submarines. You have to sympathise a little. It can’t be easy driving a metal tube the length of a football field underwater with no windows.
We should remind ourselves, with pride, that when a tiny country like New Zealand gets up the nose of Uncle Sam, as with our nuclear-ship ban, we must be doing something right. In a recent prepared speech to be delivered at Victoria University, US Ambassador Charles Swindells (accent on the last syllable) urged a re-examination of the nuclear ships issue, and warned that the US was not simply going to “get over it”. So much for that lucrative free-trade deal. (Swindells could not deliver his speech because of noisy anti-nuclear protesters.)
Readers please note that a highly readable and comprehensive report by Kate Dewes on “Challenges to New Zealand’s Nuclear Free Policy” appeared earlier this year in the journal Pacific Ecologist (Issue 5, Spring/Autumn 2003, pp25-29). We highly recommend this journal to our readers. It is published by the Pacific Institute of Resource Management in association with The Ecologist (UK). Contact: www.pirm.org.nz, Box 12125, Wellington, NZ.
----------------------------------------
|
|
next article |
|
|