A good reminder of the past but your article is lacking in its accuracy of the present.
Firstly, while I was an enthusiastic support of Labour's Nuclear Free policy the nuclear free movement was actually a grass roots movement that Labour took on, rather than being led by Labour.
National have always "had the smell of Uranium on their breath" and still do. The trouble is except for the recent Labour conference the last Labour government and in fact all Labour govts since Lange's government collapsed have slowly but surely been returning to the US umbrella, and with the last Labour govt participating in AUKUS2 discussions and NATO conferences, means that one remit at a conference doesn't count for much as far as I'm concerned.
Now to your question is AUKUS nuclear free? That's kind of the wrong question because it leads to splitting hairs. The obvious answer is that it isn't. The whole AUKUS 2 posture is an aggressive containment policy by the US in which they bring the potential nuclear conflict into the Pacific, well away from the US homeland so they have some chance of a few surviving the nuclear war that could well result. The idea that NZ could participate in "pillar 2", things like advanced communications, guidance and AI and not be linked with nuclear is nonsense. What do you think those communications and guidance systems are for? By taking part our defense/communication locations will CERTAINLY be put into China's strike target list. i.e. you cannot separate nuclear weapons from the comms/guidance systems and any attempt to do so is just sophistry.
Finally to your open question as to whether the policy feels important when the threat of nuclear war was far more salient. You are right that it does not appear to feel important but I'd argue that that is an indication of just how far the US security state propaganda has infiltrated the western media. If you take a slightly closer look at what leading (left wing) dissidents are saying and even the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Doomsday Clock saying its 90 secs to midnight, it's the closest we've been to nuclear war any time since 1963. The trouble is our media simply peddles US and UK talking points and its what they are not saying, especially about nuclear risk that is most alarming. The Ukraine war is in fact one part civil war in Ukraine and 3 parts geo-strategic, nuclear defense/security driven. The western media only ever repeats that Putin is an irrational monster and NEVER take a closer look and realise that nuclear missiles positioned in Ukraine would leave the global nuclear war trigger down to below 8 minutes.
That's reckless in the extreme and massively increases the chance of a preemptive nuclear strike or a "mistake" that results in utter destruction. I'd say the risk and consequences of western (read US) defense policy make the immediacy of the climate change emergency pale into relative insignificance at this point in time.
NZ does not have permanent friends, it has permanent interests, just like every other country. It is in our interests to keep good relations with many, vitally with Australia and also the US and China. But when the push comes to shove we should and will recognise that our interests lie with America.
An article of faith and a 20th century view. The west is in long term decline; good bye to 200 years of western supremacy... If that isn't obvious you need to scan more broadly.
When Trump's defence/foreign policy basically amounts to "buy our F-35s or else", Chippy's AUKUS policy makes perfect sense. Even if/when Trump leaves the White House by 2029, America's standing in the world won't be quite the same. It's been declining for some time, from the moment America leapt before it looked into Vietnam. It went back up with weapons shipments to Ukraine, then back down again with the propping up of Bibi.
American foreign policy has been at its best when part of a truly multilateral effort, as with the 1991 Gulf War & the Kosovo missions.
You're only right about their standing in the world going up with weapons supply to Ukraine if you think that only the west is the world. The other part, that represent s 80% of the population is dead against it, and so should we be.
“Yet even Trump has a term limit.”
We’ll see.
A good reminder of the past but your article is lacking in its accuracy of the present.
Firstly, while I was an enthusiastic support of Labour's Nuclear Free policy the nuclear free movement was actually a grass roots movement that Labour took on, rather than being led by Labour.
National have always "had the smell of Uranium on their breath" and still do. The trouble is except for the recent Labour conference the last Labour government and in fact all Labour govts since Lange's government collapsed have slowly but surely been returning to the US umbrella, and with the last Labour govt participating in AUKUS2 discussions and NATO conferences, means that one remit at a conference doesn't count for much as far as I'm concerned.
Now to your question is AUKUS nuclear free? That's kind of the wrong question because it leads to splitting hairs. The obvious answer is that it isn't. The whole AUKUS 2 posture is an aggressive containment policy by the US in which they bring the potential nuclear conflict into the Pacific, well away from the US homeland so they have some chance of a few surviving the nuclear war that could well result. The idea that NZ could participate in "pillar 2", things like advanced communications, guidance and AI and not be linked with nuclear is nonsense. What do you think those communications and guidance systems are for? By taking part our defense/communication locations will CERTAINLY be put into China's strike target list. i.e. you cannot separate nuclear weapons from the comms/guidance systems and any attempt to do so is just sophistry.
Finally to your open question as to whether the policy feels important when the threat of nuclear war was far more salient. You are right that it does not appear to feel important but I'd argue that that is an indication of just how far the US security state propaganda has infiltrated the western media. If you take a slightly closer look at what leading (left wing) dissidents are saying and even the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Doomsday Clock saying its 90 secs to midnight, it's the closest we've been to nuclear war any time since 1963. The trouble is our media simply peddles US and UK talking points and its what they are not saying, especially about nuclear risk that is most alarming. The Ukraine war is in fact one part civil war in Ukraine and 3 parts geo-strategic, nuclear defense/security driven. The western media only ever repeats that Putin is an irrational monster and NEVER take a closer look and realise that nuclear missiles positioned in Ukraine would leave the global nuclear war trigger down to below 8 minutes.
That's reckless in the extreme and massively increases the chance of a preemptive nuclear strike or a "mistake" that results in utter destruction. I'd say the risk and consequences of western (read US) defense policy make the immediacy of the climate change emergency pale into relative insignificance at this point in time.
NZ does not have permanent friends, it has permanent interests, just like every other country. It is in our interests to keep good relations with many, vitally with Australia and also the US and China. But when the push comes to shove we should and will recognise that our interests lie with America.
An article of faith and a 20th century view. The west is in long term decline; good bye to 200 years of western supremacy... If that isn't obvious you need to scan more broadly.
When Trump's defence/foreign policy basically amounts to "buy our F-35s or else", Chippy's AUKUS policy makes perfect sense. Even if/when Trump leaves the White House by 2029, America's standing in the world won't be quite the same. It's been declining for some time, from the moment America leapt before it looked into Vietnam. It went back up with weapons shipments to Ukraine, then back down again with the propping up of Bibi.
American foreign policy has been at its best when part of a truly multilateral effort, as with the 1991 Gulf War & the Kosovo missions.
You're only right about their standing in the world going up with weapons supply to Ukraine if you think that only the west is the world. The other part, that represent s 80% of the population is dead against it, and so should we be.
Nice work Henry.