Antinuclear

Last month, on the eve of a conference in Mexico on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop clarified the government’s position. ”[The] argument ‘to ban the bomb’ may be emotionally appealing, but the reality is that disarmament cannot be imposed that way,’…….

Judging from this, at least we know that the view of the Abbott government is consistent with Australia’s frantic diplomatic efforts to stymie New Zealand’s recent campaign. Besides, the statement was doomed to be vetoed not just by Australia, but the five nuclear-weapons states, the US, China, Russia, Britain and France.

More intriguing is the fact that history is repeating itself. As The Age reported last October, the former Labor government in effect abandoned its disarmament policy because the continued reliance on ”extended nuclear deterrence” was considered such an essential part of national defence strategy.

According to declassified documents, diplomatic officials planned to work against humanitarian organisations campaigning for nuclear-weapon bans. Indeed, the documents also revealed that the Australian government had refused to endorse an 80-nation statement at a Geneva non-proliferation conference in April 2013. The objection was over the reference to ”the incalculable human suffering associated with any use of nuclear weapons”.

What was unsavoury about the then Gillard government’s dramatic change of policy was how it betrayed Labor as two-faced: a government which, in public, advocated disarmament but, in private, actively supported nuclear deterrence. At the time, Gareth Evans, who as foreign minister established the Canberra Commission on nuclear disarmament, was highly critical. ”If you are serious about nuclear disarmament, you have to be serious about it at all levels,” he said. For the moment, that is not Australia’s position.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/australias-nuclear-question-mark-20140310-34ho0.html#ixzz2vfwg7opV