It’s interesting to see Kevin Rudd again use an overseas trip for a major announcement - the initiation by Australia of an international commission to feed into the review process in 2010 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Rudd made the announcement after he’d been to Hiroshima, a destination that few Western leaders have visited. Getting in before the predictable claims that the announcement was made to “distract attention from petrol” or “cooked up on the run”, Gareth Evans, who will head the body, points out it was an election commitment from Labor and that he’d first discussed it with Rudd in January.
Will any such announcement be met with such pettifogging criticism, or claims that Australia should adopt a modest posture in the region and the world (presumably as Assistant Under-Sheriff or Dogcatcher to our mighty friend, etc, etc) rather than discussed on its merits? We’ll see.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop on foreign policy cringe in the Australian media.
Hmmn.
I note that Tim Dunlop is (again) choosing a Fairfax story to make a point about media criticism, while (again) linking to Murdoch media stories to flesh out the “facts”. Is it because he cannot find any Murdoch media examples to use, or because he is not allowed to use them?
Gandhi, I note that you don’t even have the guts to say that to Tim via his blog. How pathetic!
On the topic of the post, I agree completely with banning nuclear weapons and am surprised yet pleased that Rudd has come out and said so publicly.
I don’t think discussion of Tim Dunlop’s blogging practices - as opposed to the substance of his post - is on topic. Thanks!
Such ‘pettifogging’ criticism has started already, if the 7.30 Report’s Heather Ewitt is any guide. Speaking on ABC radio in Sydney this morning, she could hardly have been more dismissive, the general tenor being that since Rudd had no chance of actually achieving anything, it was all an ill-conceived publicity stunt.
Discussing anything that Labor proposes ‘on its merits’ seems to be outlawed at the ABC these days.
Well, Kim, as I recently said on another thread, Rudd’s talk about new international laws governing nukes has little credibility when we as a nation are not even respecting existing laws such as the Geneva Convention. So it’s a credibility thing.
Tim is criticising Fairfax journos for poor practice while he himself has bowed to Murdoch censorship. You’re the one who included his post as an example, otherwise I wouldn’t mention it.
Is this a thread about nukes, or about how pollies and the media spin the story of nukes? If the latter, then I don’t think I am too far off topic. Surely we should guard against overly rigid censorship in the blogosphere as much as we deplore it in the media?!
Alastair, it’s hard to discuss these issues publicly when people delete your comments. That’s been my experience at Blogocracy and Surfdom, and it will probably happen again here very soon if I don’t shut up.
gandhi, I don’t think this is on topic. You’ve got your own blog where you can take up this issue if you choose.
I’ve got a more substantive post on the matter in the draft bin, maybe I’ll put it up tomorrow.
The short version of the merits of the policy - nuclear weapons are not going to be abolished. But there’s plenty of room for risk reduction, and if Gareth Evans dusts off the Canberra Commission recommendations and dumps them on Barack Obama’s doorstep it might help kick off the process of some of that risk reduction.
Yes, Rob, I noted in the post that the substance is an attempt to revivify the NPT or replace it. I suppose my headline might be a bit misleading, and apologise if that’s so.
Kim, the headline is perfect.
Cheers!
Thanks Kim. ‘Nuff said.
On the issue of pettifogging, I supposed I stand accused: I am all for nuclear non-proliferation, but I find it very hard to take Rudd seriously here. So I am obliged to look for a “back story” that explains what’s really going on.
Maybe if Peter Garret were fronting the cameras, rather than Gareth Evans, the story might have a bit more “Oomph”.
First up, thanks for the link on the cringe piece. Given Gandhi’s comment, can I just point out that if he’d clicked my first link in that post, to an earlier post on the topic, he’d see I was responding to a piece from the Oz. If he read the current piece properly, he’d see I’ve added another eg, again from a News Ltd piece. I used the Phil Coorey piece for today’s post bc I happened to read it this morning. I read the Malcolm Colless piece later and added it as a further eg of the cringe I was talking about. Big conspiracy. Sorry to go off topic and maybe everyone can now discuss the actual issue.
Thanks for that, Tim. I think you’ve got a right to respond to gandhi but any further comments on this side-topic won’t be permitted.
This nuke ban is another stunt as was signing Kyoto, promising to protect whales, solar cell promotion, the apology, the carers pittance, abolishing workchoices(?) etc.
I am sure Rudd, Evans and others may be able to achieve some reduction in nuke warheads somewhere, but such reductions are meaningless today. The massive build up of Nukes was started by the M.A.D. doctrine (mutually assured destruction). However today nuclear warfare is a matter or first strike and missile defence shields. The missile defence shield, which Howard enthusiastically endorsed and I have not heard a Rudd comment yet but he still salutes Dubya, allows for a massive reduction in missile capacity. Defence shield allows for first strike. The intercepting missiles of the shield are not targeted to stop missiles landing on population centres but rather to defend missile sites from retaliation after a first strike, allowing (so the theory goes) for an actual winner to emerge from the nuclear exchange.
This feels like a stunt to me, a symbolic return to 70s and 80s disarmament sentiment with no relevance at all to the prospect of peace or even to reducing the liklihood of a nuclear exchange.
The greatest threat of nuclear war comes from the missile shield because it makes a first strike a “realistic” option again. When Rudd opposes the missile shield then we will know he is really concerned about nuke war.
One can only wish them luck. I have hardly any hope they’ll succeed but they get full marks for trying.
Nelson responds:
http://liberal.org.au/info/news/detail/20080610_NelsonDoorstop.php
Perhaps this explains the nuclear disarmament announcement.
“Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the government will fulfil a Howard-government era policy to build a nuclear waste dump.”
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080610/2/177qd.html
Today Peter Garrett and Martin Ferguson announced that we are to have a nuclear waste dump. Perhaps this explains the nuclear disarmament announcement.
John: it’s a low-level nuclear waste dump to dispose of domestically-generated wastes. It’s either got bugger-all radioactivity, or the radioactivity decays to nothing in a few years.
In any case, even if we ceased generating this stuff tomorrow (which would imply the total cessation of the use of radioactivity in medicine, amongst other things) we’d have to dispose of the existing stock. Or would you prefer that it continue to sit around in drums in other random locations?
Well,I say as a tedious individual,who in his early twenties found a book on the effects of a few Japanese problems that then went into the Friends of The Earth library down in Melbourne.I am dumbstruck,by the problems I had as living human being then,opening myself up to this evil of Nuke weapons,as I am dumbstruck by attitudes of the Tracey person.All I ask is how and when did Rudd begin to be a fellow traveller in this concern about evil and evil intent!? And no expert on Rudd’s credentials as anti-nuke… are standing in print here, or, referenced.The fact he went to Hiroshima,may in fact.. be more important than what I previously stated,and ,for doing so, well, the best thing a Australian PM has done so far,I would say! Garrett and the rest of the clowns,aren’t tickling me pink,and as far as Ferguson is concerned,he must have a Frank Sinatra line or two about clowns running through his head,everytime someone suggests he is a clown!?Add chewing gum and a capacity to walk at the same time,and well isnt he the greatest ,bloody…..Hey !Kids!? Can you find a word that will fit in easily here!?
Sorry for the double post above, the first one dissappeared.
Robert, there are many issues involved in a debate about nuclear dumps. Both Garret and Ferguson have been evasive about details of the dump (if you have a link it would be appreciated) but Ferguson has committed to fast tracking the process which must be understood in terms of the previous and present governments agendas in the NT intervention, in particular matters of land title.
The Howard vision for a dump was to value add to the nuclear fuel cycle including proposals for yellowcake enrichment, fuel processing and the big gap in the global market - storing spent fuel.
Why do you think the ALP plan is different? Such a minesite to dumpsite engagement and regulation dovetails perfectly with Rudd’s disarmament scheme of regulating “civil” use of nuclear fuel.
Those more booklearned than me have questioned how safe or “low” low level radiation is. I have been involved in the protests at Narangbar low level Nuclear dump so I guess we will disagree on those issues which do have big impact on such things as nuclear medicine.
However I find it an emotive distraction to use nuclear medicine as a defense for remote nuclear waste dumps. The urban Narangba “low level” facility apparently has as its major customers (or did years ago) breweries who use some form of Xray to test the beer. The nuclearisation of general industry is a much bigger issue than nuclear medicine and while connected, are a totally different and economically insignificant to the global corporations who developed their plans for the global nuclear energy market under Howard, corporations which have entrenched themselves into Australia’s economy to the point that the domestic mining and energy industries are controlled by these investors in our national infrastructure.
You are naive to believe that any viable economic proposal for a remote Nuclear waste dump will be limited to medical waste. Its cheaper to truck or train it to Narangbar from almost all of the nations hospitals. You need remote, geologically stable areas to store spent fuel rods though.
NPT is commendable, but it is cure, and tokenism I fear.
Exporting and selling uranium is where the nuclear cycle starts. Prevention would be to scale this back or stop it. No mention of this in Rudd’s political position.
So is prevention really better than cure, as popular wisdom dictates?
There is a whiff of hypocrisy surrounding this. We will make money by flogging uranium but get precious when countries make nukes . . .
A quibble: on ABC TV “they” (was it Rudd?) said that he visited “the only site where a nuclear weapon was used in war” (Hiroshima), but it seems “they” have forgotten about Nagasaki, the second place a bomb was dropped in war.
Everyone,
Those who say that we’re never going to be able to “Ban the Bomb” are dead right - especially if nobody ever tries.
Good on Ruddy for putting this on the agenda - I think Australia is perfectly placed to do this - we are generally well regarded internationally again now that Deputy Dawg Howeird is off the scene, we have good relationships with both the US and China, and we are not in the Nuclear arms business ourselves.
OK it may take a generation - in that case we’d better get started.
Well said PDL.
OK it may take a generation - in that case we’d better get started.
But we’ve already had generations of effort to set up the existing non-proliferation system, which has been steadily undermined in recent years by disreputable leaders who’ve sought short-term political and/or financial gain ahead of long-term peace and security. (I’m thinking of those who would sell uranium to non-signatory states, but of course there have been lots of other minor offenders, and the big nuclear powers haven’t set a very good example either).
Wouldn’t it be better to build on the existing system and reinforce it rather than scrapping the whole thing and starting again? And wouldn’t the best way of reinforcing the current system be to hold those who damage it accountable? Indeed, looking at the Big Picture, wouldn’t the best idea be a full-scale return to the once highly esteemed ideals of International Law?
Let’s set our house in order, folks. Somehow I don’t think moving across the tracks to build a new house is the best solution right now.
If there’s more to Rudd’s proposals than this, I’m not seeing it.
Abandoned mines in Broken hill make an ideal place to store radioactive waste. Deep, not accessible to terrorists, tectonically stable etc, no moisture either, no eed to pump. We could make a mozza storing processed waste! And improve the woprld doing so.
At this time of energy crisis to suggest we do not export uranium is totally but totally silly. At least Labor stopped uranium exports to India, so the anti nuclear bomb thing is not hypocrisy.
Good start Kevin and good choice in Gareth Evans.
About time the work of the Canberra Commission was re-visited by an Australian Govt. Hats off to Kevin for taking the time to address something important rather than focusing only on the urgent.
This one is both.
Kim, as usual there were good reasons for Rudd to make this announcement in Japan, not that any MSM could be bothered to report them.
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0294.cfm
(Gads, the man needs a speechwriter!)
“In the 1990s, Australia convened the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.
Japan in the late 1990s established the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.
These two bodies produced reports that have become benchmarks in the international community’s efforts to deal with nuclear weapons.
I think it is time we looked anew at the questions they addressed and revisited some of the conclusions they reached. The NPT Review Conference will be held in 2010. It is the five yearly meeting of parties to the treaty to assess progress against the treaty’s aims and look at how we can strengthen its provisions.
So, before we get to the Review Conference, we need to do some serious thinking about how we support the treaty and how we move forward on our goals. I announce today that Australia proposes to establish an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, to be co-chaired by former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans.
The Commission will re-examine the Canberra Commission and the Tokyo Forum reports to see how far we have come, how much work remains, and develop a possible plan of action for the future.
The Commission will report to a major international conference of experts in late 2009 that will be sponsored by Australia.
I look forward to discussing with Japan their participation in the work of this commission. Australia and Japan have also agreed to establish a high-level dialogue on non-proliferation and disarmament to advance this critical international debate.
It is intended that the Commission and the subsequent conference will help pave the way for the NPT Review Conference in 2010. We cannot simply stand idly by and allow another Review Conference to achieve no progress – or worse to begin to disintegrate. The treaty is too important. The goal of nuclear non-proliferation is too important.”
Kev: “Hey George dubya, Macain / obama, How abouts we gits you to throw out sum you there nuclear weapons, huh?
George/macain/obama: “who are you again?”
Kev: ” Hyuk, hyuk, aw c’mon guys, I’ve bin to Heroshima and I wanna git rid of the bombs, whadya say?
george/macain/obama: “Yeah sure kev, why not..we know who you are now, your that guy from midnight oil, right?…oh and kev, dont forget to bring that subject up at the olympics…ok, I’m sure the the North Koreans will be there this year. I know the Pakis and the Indians will be there too…oh, and the Russians, but they will have to find theirs first…..
I have 2 questions I would be interested to see answered by people who know more about Australia’s history in international law, and nuclear power/labour politics:
1. Isn’t this exactly the way in which Australia “punches above its weight” in international politics, organising international agreements which people like… isn’t this why Evatt and others are well respected
2. I seem to recall Bob Hawke had an (in my opinion quite excellent) suggestion about turning Australia into an international nuclear waste dump - maybe 2 or 3 years ago? Also, since then I think someone has raised a kind of rent/return nuclear fuel cycle plan for Australia, and pointed out that it could make a huge amount of export dollars. If so, I wonder, has Bob Hawke’s suggestion been taken up, and is Rudd trying to implement the arms-control part of the fuel cycle first? If so I fear there will be some serious conflict and a lot of political capital on the line when he announces the waste-dumping part of it.
Can anyone answer either of these questions…?
SG: the idea of an international nuclear waste dump in Australia has been suggested a number of times.
Frankly, it’s an excellent idea, but politically I don’t see it ever having any chance of getting up.
SG @ 30,
Sometimes we stuff up - like Menzies and Suez in 1956.
Or Evans/Keating and Eat Timor in the 1990s.
32. Sp. East Timor
Australia doesn’t punch above its weight in international politics. We’re disproportionately successful, in some fields, as individuals. But just ’cause we win a few Oscars and Olympic medals and boast some figures of significance in, say, UN positions, doesn’t mean that we, as a nation, make significant contributions to geopolitical trends that are not entirely consistent with out levels of wealth and strategic position.
>
When Howard did his song-and-dance viz the US and us being bestest buddies it was bollocks. The press in the US and the UK barely mentioned Australian involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. It didn’t matter that much. Howard wasn’t the deputy he was the runt of the posse.
So what? We have good relationships with lots of countries. We should have. We’ve got shitloads of resources, a fat wallet and we haven’t been around long enough to do anything really nasty yet. Big deal. The Chinese, the Yanks and everyone else in the Nuke Club’s gonna treat Kevvie a little less seriously than Bono. Bono, at least, gets boosts in aid to Africa. Of course Kevvie’s not talking about the Original Five right now; he’s talking North Korea and Iran. He doesn’t think they should have nukes.
>
Wow! Really Kevvie? What a fucking maverick.
This reminds me of an article Paul Hirst wrote (I think for the New Statesman but it might’ve been the New Internationalist). Not so much the article but an exchange of letters following. The article concerned strategies for achieving global peace. A reader angrily savaged it for failing to mention the peace movement which had strived so hard to accomplish world peace and wasn’t Hirst such a technocrat excluding the grass roots blah blah.
>
Unsurprisingly Hirst wiped him. As he pointed out neither individuals nor political movements can make peace. Only states can. And as the peace movement had minimal impact on the policies of states it was axiomatic that the peace movement was irrelevant at the present time to the accomplishment of global peace.
>
The peace activist’s protest was based on romanticism in contradiction of the known facts along with tendency on the part of such to over-simplify the problem and its solution. John Lennon said we could have peace tomorrow if everyone wanted it. Okay well how do you do this? How do you have everyone on the planet simultaneously going: yes we want peace - and somehow simultaneously disposing of their arsenals? I guarantee you that if it ain’t 110% reliable it won’t happen. Think Israel, think India and Pakistan. Think!
>
You say it’ll take a generation. I admire your chutzpah but that’s just poppycock. If you really want to achieve nuclear disarmament then you need to be committed to a longer hall. Remember many of the states who have these weapons are autocratic. It doesn’t matter how many Chinese people want out of the nuke club, the PRC doesn’t give a rat’s. Getting Israel to rid themselves of nukes means making the Mid-East kiss and make up - therein lies many a diplomat’s hardened arteries - and also getting ‘em to admit they have ‘em in the first place.
>
Kevvie’s simply creating a new bureaucracy. One that does not have any authority. Because it has no authority, it can be ignored. The non-proliferation treaty legitimized 5 nations as nuke club members. This is because they already were. They were also the five permanent members of the UNSC and tend to be regarded as domineering nations for some reason. Since then four other states have joined the club without permission. Nothing’s happened to ‘em.
>
And anyway, permission from whom? Why? Whose got the right to nuke and what is the basis of this right? Hint: it ain’t democracy and it ain’t good behaviour in the global village either.
Eat Timor? East Timor? Australia certainly wanted to gobble up a good share of the oil resources
Can anyone see a place to park Peter Garrett in this, by any chance?
Next Kev project: somewhere to keep Belinda Neal busy.
Belinda could organise a by-election in her current seat, by p*ssing the f*ck off, or yer’ll lose yer f*ckin’ licence DO YOU KNOW who I am, you bl**dy useless f*ckwit, yair you! I mean you !!!!
[soccer lass: “she tripped me up, which is OK, ‘cos it’s a contact sport…” well, no, it’s not meant to be. How is soccer played in The Hunter?]