Two ironies

April 13th, 2010 at 6:34 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he was invited to the nuclear security summit in Washington because President Barack Obama recognised the importance of New Zealand’s position.

Irony No 1 is that after 25 years of the anti-nuclear law keeping NZ on the outer in Washington, it is now being seen by the US President as a positive.

Irony No 2 is that the beneficiary of Irony No 1 is not the party that introduced the law, but the party that has spent most of the last 25 years trying to work out ways to amend it.

Politics is full of ironies.

Tags: ,

26 Responses to “Two ironies”

  1. menace (402 comments) says:

    hes just just letting key suck up and key will enjoy sucking up and key will do things he wouldn’t of done if he hadn’t had the enjoyment of sucking up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    No special reason required – everyone is going to be there:

    This week’s nuclear security summit in Washington, D.C. is the largest gathering of world leaders hosted by a U.S. president since the 1945 conference founding the United Nations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Irony 3. It’s evidence that neither of them is the right man for the job they hold.

    Joe freaken biden people. they care more about what napkins they’ll be using at the reception than New Zealands presence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Captain Neurotic (203 comments) says:

    Bahahaha i’m still giggling about Sir Geoffery Palmer’s timing to denounce the legislation! But it is obvious now that no govt. I’ll repeal it given its new fame. It is about time something
    that labour did benefit NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I hope John enjoys his visit to the Obama nation.
    Who thinks China won’t be the nigger in the woodpile, politely of course.
    After all they have all of Americas secrets and designs, it’s just a matter of time before they catch up as OB1 knows.
    That genie is out of the bottle and won’t be put back.

    As for the UN now calling for a world wide movement to lead to no nuclear weapons, yeah right.
    If they had any credibility I might listen, but for an organisation of 190 odd countries to spend 50% of it’s time demonizing one nation of 5 million people since 1948, with all the other shysters sitting on their human rights councils and various committees.
    Until they actually do something about all the corrupt nations plying their trade at the UN, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
    Oh and money in bank accounts.

    Yeah free trade. wow. go for it John Boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    No – the beneficiary in this is the NZ PM – and, by extension, NZ. Not your Party. National Party Cheerleader.

    And the real irony here is that ‘irony no.1′ is actually not very ironic at all. This is the US finally waking up to the fact that NZ was right to take no-nukes stance.

    [DPF: RRM. You are being a dick. I am actually pointing out that it is somewhat unfair that Key and National get the credit for the policy, when National (not Key) spent so long trying to change it. I that is called being a cheerleader, then you need help]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Yes, it’s ironic that the US now sees it as advantageous to them for other countries to encourage non-proliferation – the current nuclear powers keep their power, and hope that the “NZ disease” spreads throughout all non-nuclear countries.

    There are some advantages in a few countries having nukes as a deterrent, the real danger is in too many countries having them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Non-proliferation is dead in the water. Any decent-sized country which wants nuclear weapons can make them. And there’s really no practical way to stop them. In fact the US et al invading Iraq has probably given more impetus than ever for aspiring nuclear states to press ahead with their development. The genie is well and truly out.

    I think this conference is all about the US and Russia rationalising their old weapons. They really don’t need as many as they still have and they cost a lot to maintain and replace. There was massive overs-shot during the cold war. The UK has a few hundred warheads whereas Russia and the US have many thousands each.

    There was an interesting ‘public debate’ on retaining the nuclear deterrent in the UK a while back. They’re up to their eyeballs in public debt and they need to commit to replacing the nuclear subs on which their missiles are deployed. I think the conclusion was it is hard to justify the cost but no one wants to give it away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. garethw (205 comments) says:

    Pretty sure that first one isn’t really an irony. Second one I can live with =)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    Irony No 2 is that the beneficiary of Irony No 1 is not the party that introduced the law, but the party that has spent most of the last 25 years trying to work out ways to amend it.

    Which proves once again just how far from it’s principles this govt. is perceived to have moved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wreck1080 (3,912 comments) says:

    I still think we’ll never see free trade with the US, without nuke ship visits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    That’s not how I read your Irony #1 DPF, but if that’s what was intended then my bad!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    The problem is that the politicians are being devious in their comments regarding the issue.

    When the US says: We have no problem with your stance on Nuclear weapons. Key and Co repeat that as: The US has no problem with our Anti-Nuclear legislation. The fact is they do have a problem with it, in that we specifically (and irrationally) ban Nuclear Power, and therefore Nuclear propelled Naval vessels.

    And the fact is, they dont want the world to catch the full blown NZ disease – just a mild dose and become adverse to Nuclear weapons. If the world adopted our legislation lock stock, the USN would find themselves without ports to visit – therefore will not happen (although would make the Greens and Labour wet their pants!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Prime Minister John Key says he was invited to the United States nuclear security summit in Washington because President Barack Obama recognised the importance of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear position.

    How long do you think Obama will last now.. He’s just about gone up against everything Americans stand for..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Looking back, I think the whole David Lange/no nukes policy was a bit silly. Not that I’m a war-monger or anything, but it kind of destroyed the ANZUS alliance and set back our relationship with the US for not a very good reason. And now, thanks to the last Labour Govt, we don’t even have an Air Force for defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    Looking back, I think the whole David Lange/no nukes policy was a bit silly. Not that I’m a war-monger or anything, but it kind of destroyed the ANZUS alliance and set back our relationship with the US for not a very good reason.

    Why not place the blame for that on the American government not accommodating our national distaste for weapons of mass destruction?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Did we have a “national distaste”?
    I am not really old enough to know – I wasn’t interested back then, but I wonder if it was a nationwide thing or just a certain fringe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Fletch – the anti-nuke movement from the 70’s conditioned NZ to believe anything nuclear driven was evil, moreso if it was US owned. I’m not so sure on Ryans assertion that we had a national distaste for weapons of mass destruction. For all we know, post the no nukes policy US ships equiped with bio or chemical weapons may well have come and gone. There was no demand for denial of those IIRC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    For all we know, post the no nukes policy US ships equiped with bio or chemical weapons may well have come and gone. There was no demand for denial of those IIRC

    Good point, but given how many big US ships were nuclear powered, it was probably covered in the umbrella.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    IIRC the US had a “neither confirm nor deny” policy regarding weather a ship had nuclear weapons, so all US ships were banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    ..whether a ship…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Why not place the blame for that on the American government not accommodating our national distaste for weapons of mass destruction?

    Except the law didn’t just ban Nuclear weapons

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Classic, in Seaview (near Petone) we have a nuclear research facility not even 20k’s from parliament. Yet we pretend that we are against all things nuclear. The reef-fish have been well suckered into supporting Labour’s populatity contest winner from the 80’s. We must move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    I wonder if we ask the Chinese to confirm they do not carry Nuclear weapons on their vessels? And if China becomes a global super power, will we ban their vessels from NZ, if they are so powered. They do have aspirations of becoming a global superpower, and are well on their way if not there already, they are planning very large aircraft carriers and nuclear power will probably be the way to go for them. Would we tell them to fuck off. If they would ‘neither confirm or deny’ would Greenpeace be out if force to protest?

    Doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Bevan

    Perhaps we could ask the dalai lama that question next time he meets senior govt officials here in NZ. Ooops, forgot we need to obey our Chinese masters and ban him… Looks like we won’t ask them that question then eh…. But sssh, the reef-fish wan’t ask that question if we don’t bring it to their attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    What a load of lefty crap, poor old Shonkey is simply Mac Daddy’s house nigger. “Look over there, there’s Shonkey from Kiwiland, no nukes there, why can’t the rest of you clowns be like this simpleton”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote