Graham Kennedy: Motions — Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference 
Graham Kennedy: Motions — Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference 
[Volume:662;Page:10808] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support Mr Twyford’s motion members’ motion No. 1. This House is asked to do three things: first to recognise the historic opportunity to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament at the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty conference that is currently under way; secondly to recognise the leadership on this issue by US President Obama; and thirdly to call on the New Zealand Government to take an active role on this issue drawing on our proud nuclear-free stance and supporting the UN’s five-point plan including preparation for a nuclear weapons convention. Let us scrutinise each of those matters without any euphoria over the global opportunity for nuclear disarmament or New Zealand’s role in it. 
The one historic opportunity for nuclear disarmament came and went in 1946 when the US which was at the time the only country that possessed nuclear weapons offered the Baruch Plan to place atomic energy under international control. Global strategic relations since that ill-fated attempt have taken the schizoid character of a determination by the five permanent Security Council members to accumulate nuclear weapons in their national arsenals while preventing other States from doing the same. So we need to distinguish between nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. 
The non-proliferation treaty is an agreement to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to non - nuclear weapon States. It recognises the de facto possession of nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the Security Council. That possession was justified for 40 years on the grounds of the need for there to be a mutual deterrent during the Cold War. When the Cold War ended the rationale switched to retaining nuclear weapons as a prudential hedge in an uncertain world and also as the currency of global power. Today it rests largely on the proclaimed need to deter nuclear terrorism. The strategic policy of NATO speaks as always before of the retention of nuclear weapons into the indefinite future at the lowest level necessary to preserve international peace and security—a haughty and patronising attitude redolent of 19th century alliance diplomacy. The non-proliferation treaty includes as the quid pro quo for the original agreement an undertaking by the five permanent members to negotiate nuclear disarmament measures in good faith. The World Court judged back in 1996 that it was a binding obligation not just to negotiate but also to reach agreement on nuclear disarmament. That of course has not been done. 
The positive rhetoric of the US President is a welcome change from the benighted and wilfully ignorant policy of his predecessor but Mr Obama does not expect nuclear disarmament to occur in his lifetime. This relieves him of any responsibility to proceed with haste. Reducing the levels by 30 percent to 1550 nuclear strategic warheads each will simply make the rubble bounce fewer times. It does not penetrate the barrier of minimal deterrence nor will it do so until the legitimacy and effectiveness of global collective security through conventional weaponry is achieved with nuclear weapons actually being dismantled. It would in fact be possible for the two major powers to dismantle their strategic arsenals in roughly the same amount of time that it took them to build them up: about 10 years. India recognised this in its proposals back in the 1980s with its 20-year programme for a nuclear-free world. Failure by the five permanent members to make progress in this respect prompted India and Pakistan to emulate them. Israel of course is offered the special treatment of a duplicitous silence by superpower decree. 
We in New Zealand have succumbed to a bout of narcissistic preening over our nuclear-free policy. I was and remain a supporter of that policy. I did my PhD on the subject and I was part of the New Zealand delegation that negotiated the South Pacific zone. But there has always been a distinction between the strict nuclear-free policy that applies here in our national territory and the ambivalent stance that we take at the United Nations regarding a nuclear-free world. To this day we still vote along political rather than logical lines on nuclear disarmament at the United Nations. Only when New Zealand declares its readiness to commence negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention that can be implemented over 20 years can this country stand true to its proclaimed nuclear-free policy. Until then we remain encapsulated within the NATO reliance on nuclear weapons and remain pliant with our deployment of conventional armed forces overseas. Our SAS and provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan operate effectively under NATO strategic direction not that of the United Nations. 
Let us wish the non-proliferation treaty conference well let us wish President Obama well and let us start to vote consistently for a nuclear-free world at the United Nations and take a leading role in working towards a nuclear weapons convention.