Before reading the article, you click "follow", which is convenient for discussion and sharing, and can also bring you a different sense of participation. [Ratio]
introduction
The establishment of the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone is a representative case of countries in the region building consensus on regional nuclear security issues and conducting consultations with major powers outside the region on this basis.
However, domestic concerns about South Pacific regionalism have only recently emerged, and research on the South Pacific zone has only appeared in a rare general discussion of the zone, focusing mainly on Australian and New Zealand scholars and other English-language literature on the South Pacific region, and exploring regionalism in the region through the case study of the South Pacific zone will provide a new perspective.
First, the denuclearization of the South Pacific
The nuclear issue in the South Pacific has a long history, and its essence is a cancer produced by Western colonialism.
The three nuclear-armed states of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, all have territories and possessions in the South Pacific region, which is far from the mainland of the United States, Britain and France, and has been used by these countries since World War II as a testing ground for nuclear bomb blasting.
The United States was the first to begin nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands in 1946 and successfully blasted the first hydrogen bomb on the Atoll of Enewetok Island in 1952.
Britain's first successful nuclear test was conducted in Australia, and the French government announced in 1963 that it would move its nuclear test site to French Polynesia.
Australia, New Zealand and Pacific island countries have expressed varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the harm caused by nuclear testing and related activities.
Influenced by the Partial Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the United States and Britain stopped nuclear testing in the South Pacific in 1963, while France increased the number of tests in 1966, and its first hydrogen bomb was successfully tested near Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia.
In addition, a 1998 report indicated that more than 3,200 tons of radioactive waste of various species were dumped into the Pacific Ocean and sunk to the bottom of the coast of Mururowa Atoll and Howe Atoll at a depth of 1,000 metres.
The denuclearization of the South Pacific is the common aspiration of all countries in the region, but it is difficult to imagine because it involves the nuclear interests of major powers outside the region and the strategic competition between the two superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union.
The two regional powers, Australia and New Zealand, have shown different attitudes, positions and responses in the process, and through the case studies of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, we can observe Australia's behavioral motivations and ways of participating in the South Pacific region, and analyze Australia's role in the development of South Pacific regionalism.
New Zealand's South Pacific non-nuclear agenda
New Zealand's role in the South Pacific anti-nuclear issue cannot be ignored, and its adherence to principles on this issue also reflects Australia's pragmatism.
New Zealand's more remote location and its larger size of Australia separated from Asia make it more likely to be a corner of the country.
The fact that Australia's northern ports were attacked by Japan during World War II but New Zealand was not hit may confirm the extent to which Australia and New Zealand are worried about their own strategic security environment.
Overall, New Zealanders feel less about security threats from the outside world.
The negative effects of the Vietnam War provoked a rethinking of the U.S. security strategy in New Zealand society and further stimulated anti-nuclear sentiment.
The social peace movement formed a centrifugal force against the New American alliance, and the political ideas of its leaders who were autonomous, neutral, and non-aligned put pressure on government decision-making, making New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy appear more radical.
In the trend of the world denuclearization movement, New Zealand has formed a social anti-nuclear consensus, and the New Zealand Labor Party has played a leading role in the anti-nuclear movement.
Although New Zealand has always been an important member of the Commonwealth and has joined the Australia-New Zealand-US alliance with Australia, when it comes to nuclear issues, the New Zealand Labor Party tends to distance itself from the United States and Britain to maintain its autonomy.
After Kirk, the leader of the New Zealand Labor Party came to power in 1972, he sought a more active anti-nuclear policy, declaring that nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships would not be allowed to visit New Zealand ports, and the United States policy was not to disclose whether nuclear weapons were on board, which made it impossible for any American ships to continue to use New Zealand ports.
Another important step is to resolutely prevent major powers from conducting nuclear tests in the Pacific.
In 1973, Kirk, together with Australian Prime Minister Whitlam, took France to the International Court of Justice, causing France to suspend atmospheric nuclear testing under pressure and turn to underground testing.
The New Zealand Labor Party has also bravely united South Pacific island countries to jointly deal with nuclear threats and nuclear waste dumping, and has become the strongest supporter of the island countries' demand for non-nuclear weapons.
In July 1975, New Zealand Labour Prime Minister Rawling first proposed the concept of a nuclear-weapon-free zone at the South Pacific Islands Forum, and at the United Nations General Assembly in 1975, together with Papua New Guinea and Fiji, submitted a proposal for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific, which was adopted 110-0, and 20 other countries abstained, including the United States and the Soviet Union.
Although the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone was shelved due to the rise of the Conservative parties of Singapore and Australia, this valuable attempt provided reference and experience for Australia to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific in the eighties.
Australia's South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone
In contrast, Australia's denuclearisation stance reflects more realistic considerations, and the drivers behind it are more complex and diverse.
Australia's moderate stance on the South Pacific nuclear-weapon-free zone has translated into a limited nuclear restriction formula that generally supports and promotes the denuclearization of the South Pacific, but does not strictly prohibit the transport of nuclear weapons in the region, including airports where nuclear-capable aircraft are called.
Australian Prime Minister Hawke has recognized that for the Australia-US alliance to continue to function effectively, it is essential for U.S. ships, including those carrying nuclear weapons, to call at Australian ports.
As he pointed out to New Zealand Prime Minister Rongy, it is absurd for New Zealand to maintain a military alliance with the United States without allowing American ships to approach.
In addition, the North West Point Naval Communications Station, the Pine Gap Intelligence Station and the ground receiving station of the Nurunga Space Early Warning System in the Australian mainland are also of high strategic value to the United States, so the provisions of the nuclear-weapon-free zone will certainly not touch any activities of the United States in the three military base stations.
Arguably, the loose provisions in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty are tailored to its U.S. allies.
It is undeniable that the denuclearisation of the South Pacific is also in Australia's interest, while the Australian Labor government is under pressure from domestic denuclearisation movements and inner-party arms control policies.
Even if Australia's proposed limited nuclear weapons plan cannot prevent France's ongoing nuclear tests and eliminate U.S. nuclear weapons shipments through the region, Australia's three military base stations will still contribute to the U.S. nuclear weapons system, and it can still prevent the region from sliding further into the quagmire of "nuclearization" in the future.
On the eve of Hawke's visit to the United States in February 1985, his government offered to provide testing facilities for the test launch of MX missiles that were about to fall into waters near Tasmania, but under pressure from within the Labour Party, Hawke had to publicly retract his commitment during his visit to the United States.
The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific has been identified as an important objective of the HawkerLabor administration's foreign policy, and the achievement of this goal will be an important achievement for Australia in the field of arms control and nuclear non-proliferation at the United Nations, and enhance its international reputation as a middle power.
During the negotiations on a nuclear-weapon-free zone, the Hawke administration resisted intense pressure and rejected the United States' request to know the content of the agreement in advance in order to preserve the consensus reached by the South Pacific Forum members.
Australia's efforts to establish a South Pacific nuclear-weapon-free zone are supported by national interests and in line with the internationalist concept of middle-power diplomacy.
In 1985, under the leadership of the Longi government, New Zealand refused to allow U.S. guided-missile destroyers to visit New Zealand ports, provoking a strong reaction from the United States.
The United States announced the cancellation of the scheduled military exercises of Australia, New Zealand and the United States, terminated high-level cooperation in intelligence and military affairs between New Zealand and the United States, and reduced the alliance between the two countries to ordinary friendly state relations.
In August 1986, the United States announced that it would cease its defense obligations to New Zealand under the Australia-New Zealand-US Security Treaty(36), and the New American alliance fell into an unprecedented crisis.
In this regard, Australia maintains a relatively calm attitude and tries to find a balance between the new and the United States with the "golden mean".
Australia's foreign policy tends to prioritize the Australian-US alliance, so it is fully sensitive to the issue in pursuing the goal of denuclearizing the South Pacific.
As for New Zealand, Australia has tried to persuade to soften its radical stance, even with restraint in criticism.
Historically, there have been few differences between Australia and New Zealand, and the solidity of their union is extremely rare in international politics.
New Zealand is a natural ally of Australia, and Australia is also a natural dependency of New Zealand.
In this alliance crisis caused by the non-nuclear policy, Australia's handling is quite sophisticated, which not only brings the Australia-US alliance closer, but also deepens the defense cooperation between Australia and New Zealand.
After the deterioration of the relationship between New Zealand and the United States, New Zealand has had to take on more responsibilities in defense and security, and the pressure on defense spending has increased, thus creating more cooperation requirements for Australia.
After a meeting in April 1985, the defense ministers of the two countries announced that the two countries would "strengthen bilateral defense cooperation" and "enhance the integration of the active forces of the two countries," exchange more defense officials, and make better use of the military facilities of both sides for collaborative training.
In the isolation after the confrontation with the United States, the escalation of defense cooperation has also given New Zealand a reassurance.
Since then, Australia and New Zealand have launched deeper military cooperation, increased joint military training, and further coordinated the actions of the two countries in regional affairs.
The crisis of the New U.S. alliance not only did not affect the close ties between Australia and New Zealand, but further deepened them.
IV. Summary
Although Australia's true attitude is to support the denuclearization of the South Pacific region, it also believes that the policy of not allowing nuclear ships to visit ports is too radical and is not conducive to the stability of the Australia-New Zealand-US alliance, so it chooses to side with the United States.
Australia's "middle way" is a powerful embracing of the Australian-American alliance, like a shot in the arm for the United States.
At the same time, Australia also took care of the situation in New Zealand and urged the United States not to take drastic actions, especially economic sanctions, and really play a buffer between New Zealand and the United States.
These practices have helped leave room for bilateral relations between the two countries, laying the groundwork for the restoration of the Australian-New Zealand-US alliance in the future.
Bibliography:
1. Department of Treaty and Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Interpretation of South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty[M]. 2007.
2. Ruan Zongze, Dong Meisen. International nuclear disarmament from the perspective of the South Pacific nuclear-weapon-free zone[J]. Journal of International Studies, 2017(6): 73-83.
3. ZHANG Jixiang, SHI Wei. South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone: Successful Experience and Enlightenment[J]. World Economy and Politics, 2015(6): 70-77.