Some New Zealand politicians occasionally question New Zealand’s nuclear free law. In particular, the part of the law that bans nuclear powered ships is questioned. The arguments for not changing this legislation are summarised below. Overall IPPNW is strongly in favour of keeping the current legislation (or indeed strengthening it).
1 The disarmament symbolism value
New Zealand’s current nuclear free legislation has strong symbolic value in terms of being a role model for promoting nuclear disarmament internationally. Any alteration in the legislation could be perceived internationally as eroding this leadership position. This would be so even if the change was just to the nuclear-power aspect – given that nuclear power technology has links with the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. For this reason IPPNW has (at an international level) declared its opposition to nuclear power and voiced its support for the development of more sustainable and economically viable energy sources (particularly renewables). Opposition to nuclear power technology is growing around the world as the link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons development is made clearer (eg, particularly where oil-rich countries like Iran seek nuclear power for purposes of developing nuclear weapons).
2 The symbolism for marketing
New Zealand’s “clean and green” image is probably a force in making the country a top tourist destination and in assisting in the export of agricultural products. This “clean and green” image is linked with the country’s anti-nuclear reputation – and hence this image could be damaged in the eyes of tourists and overseas consumers by any changes to the legislation.
3 The disruptive effect associated with nuclear powered ships
Many New Zealanders have strong feelings of support for the current legislation and against nuclear power. As a result of this it is likely that any return of US nuclear powered vessels could cause significant protests and civil disorder (as used to occur in the 1980s in New Zealand ports). Such controversy is bad for social cohesion and also for the country’s reputation as a peaceful tourist destination.
4 Nuclear power is a hazardous technology
Although the risk of a nuclear reactor accident is certainly low – the risk of a terrorist attack on a nuclear-powered ship might be significant now that terrorists are prepared to embark on suicidal attacks on shipping (ie, the attack on the USS Cole in a Yemini port in 2000; the attack on a French oil tanker the Limburg in late 2002 [1]; and the arrest of al Qaeda men in Morocco in early 2002 for allegedly planning to sink an American or British warship off the straits of Gilbraltar [2]). Also since the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US by al Qaeda, there is greater concern that nuclear reactors might become terrorist targets: “in a post-September 11 world, many countries and policymakers have reason to re-evaluate nuclear energy” [3]. In addition, modern submarines and warships continue to suffer from serious malfunctions. For example, there was the near sinking of a British warship the HMS Nottingham off the coast of Australia in 2002 [4]. There was also the recent sinking of the nuclear-powered Kursk submarine as a result of an on-board accident – despite it being of modern design [5]. The Kursk joined two US and two Soviet nuclear-powered submarines that have sunk and remain on the ocean floor. Even if such an accident in the vicinity of New Zealand did not involve a breech of the nuclear reactor, it could still cause serious harm (including public fear and damage to the market for agricultural exports).
5 Exposure to visiting nuclear powered ships requires expensive radioactive hazard precautions
If nuclear powered ships began to visit New Zealand again, then public health authorities would be obliged to spend resources on stockpiling potassium iodide to distribute to the population in the event of an accident (as per the arrangements in the 1970s and 1980s). Such preparations can heighten public anxiety levels as has been seen in the United States for citizens around nuclear power plants [6,7]. Furthermore, there could be a public health protection requirement to stockpile ferric hexacyanoferrate(II) given its capacity for treating animal products and people exposed to radioactive caesium-137 [8]. This would involve further cost and organisational capacity.
Despite these reasons, some critics have argued that the country’s nuclear free position (and remarks by the Prime Minister during 2003 concerning Iraq) have had an adverse impact on New Zealand’s prospects for a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States. Nevertheless, a number of other commentators have also suggested that such a FTA was:
(a) always a long way off [9];
(b) likely to be of relatively little benefit anyway (eg, given how agricultural lobby groups in the United States could still block many aspects of such an agreement [10]);
(c) possibly not in New Zealand’s best interests overall (ie, the argument that bilateral free trade agreements slow progress to global trade agreements [11]).
Indeed, Australia has only made very slow progress in regard to a free trade agreement with the United States. Also Australian farmers producing wheat, sugar and cotton have been affected by increases in subsidies paid to US farmers by the US Government [12].
References
1. BBC. TNT found in stricken Yemen tanker. BBC News (World Edition) 11 October 2002. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2320893.stm]
2. Gardner F. Morocco gleans new al-Qaeda insight. BBC News (World Edition) 16 June 2002. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2048586.stm]
3. Lenssen N. Nuclear power up slightly. Vital Signs 2002. New York: WW Norton, 2002.
4. Hughes D. Holed UK warship reaches port. BBC News (World Edition) 9 August 2002. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/2182323.stm]
5. Moore R. A Time to Die: The Untold Story of the Kursk Tragedy. Crown, 2003.
6. Kilgannon C. For Many Near Nuclear Plant, Pills Are Not an Antidote to Fear. New York Times 9 June, 2002. [Late Edition – Final , Section 1 , Page 42 , Column 2].
7. Zoepf K. Radiation Pill Giveaway A Site of Fear and Anger. New York Times 16 June, 2002. [Late Edition – Final , Section 14WC , Page 16 , Column 1].
8. Howard BJ, Beresford NA, Voigt G. Countermeasures for animal products: a review of effectiveness and potential usefulness after an accident. J Environ Radioact 2001; 56: 115-37.
9. Cumming G. Trading on the giant’s toes. New Zealand Herald 1 June 2003. [URL: www.nzherald.co.nz]
10. Ruck J. Free trade deal with US a risky business. New Zealand Herald 29 May 2003. [URL: www.nzherald.co.nz]
11. Campbell G. Big deal: Why a free-trade deal with the US was always a fantasy. Listener 7 June 2003, p24.
12. Reuters. Farm subsidies bill fan flames in Australia. NZ Herald 30 April 2002 [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/businessstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=1842588&thesection=business&thesubsection=agriculture&thesecondsubsection=general]