Nuclear Realpolitik, here and at the UN

Today in question time, Dr Kennedy Graham decided to question the government on a resolution toward nuclear disarmament:

Why did New Zealand vote in December 2008 against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/75 which called for an international agreement against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and against Resolution 63/47 calling for measures for reducing nuclear danger; and will he instruct the delegation to support these resolutions if they are put forward again this year?

A reasonable question, on the face of it. NZ does tend to harp on about nuclear disarmament, so why not support UN measures to that end. The answer from Chris Finlayson quickly reveals the real situation:

Each year, in the General Assembly’s first committee on disarmament and international security, and subsequently in the General Assembly itself, India proposes the two resolutions referred to by the member. New Zealand votes against Resolution 63/75 to protest India’s attempts to use this resolution to gain credibility on nuclear disarmament while refusing to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. New Zealand votes against Resolution 63/47 due to the absence of any reference to the importance of joining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a way to reduce nuclear danger. The resolution also requests that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty States undertake a number of steps to reduce nuclear danger, but does not seek similar steps from States not party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that possess nuclear weapons.

So the truth of the matter is that the Indian resolutions are a cynical piece of political manipulation, that if passed would lead to pressure on countries that are generally scaling down their nuclear arsenal, while doing nothing to affect the recent nuclear aggressors such as India, and Pakistan. Need I also point out that several countries hit by this are both major trading partners and friends/allies (UK, and US to name two) who would probably be less than impressed were we to sign up to such a biased resolution.

What is more interesting though is understanding why Kennedy Graham, who has his degree in international relations, would be so naive as to suggest we support a resolution that does nothing to affect those who are expanding their nuclear capability, while also causing us to take a hit diplomatically. The truth of the matter is that the Greens know any nonsensical beating of the antinuclear drum will gain them cheap votes and coverage. They are not alone in this as Chris Carter was quick to jump in with the following supplementary question:

Can the Minister tell us which action by his Government on international affairs he is most proud of: was it the decision to vote against the United Nations resolutions for a ban on nuclear weapons, was it the decision to drop New Zealand’s bid for election to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, was it the Minister’s silence over Israel’s actions in Gaza earlier this year, or was it his decision to turn New Zealand’s aid focus away from poverty elimination and to just a search for New Zealand business opportunities?

Chris Finlayson quickly points out a bit of hypocrisy on the labour MP's part

I do not know why the member for Te Atatū seems to be so opposed to the stance that this Government took in relation to the two resolutions that were the subject of the primary question, because his Government adopted the same approach.

So both the Greens and Labour are prepared to nonsensically beat the antinuclear drum to shore up the unthinking antinuclear vote in the country, even when, in Labour's case, they actually took the same stand as National.