The US ship ban ends

September 22nd, 2012 at 8:16 am by David Farrar

This is a significant move by the United States. Claire Trevett reports:

In a key shift, the United States is lifting a ban on New Zealand navy vessels visiting US ports, and will remove obstacles to defence talks and exercises.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the shifts in policy after talks with Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman in Auckland today.

Mr Panetta said the restrictions would be lifted in the interests of closer defence cooperation in the Asia Pacific.

Neither side will change their stance on US ship visits to New Zealand, but Mr Panetta said the restrictions had been in place since the suspension of Anzus. He believed removing them could be made without affecting core tenets of US policy.

Currently waivers are required before New Zealand can take part in exercises or talks with the US.

Mr Panetta said the changes signified a “new era” in the relationship.

The ban had become somewhat farcical considering that NZ and US troops were serving together in Afghanistan and the like. The silliness which saw the NZ ship have to park down the road from Pearl Harbour, while Japanese ships could dock, illustrated this.

Mr Panetta said he expected to see a New Zealand Navy vessel in a US port soon but it was up to New Zealand when that happened.

“While we acknowledge our countries continue to have differences of opinion in limited areas, today we have acknowledged we are embarking on a new course in our relationship that will not let those differences stand in the way of greater engagement on security issues.”

I expect we will see a NZ ship in a US port, and then a US ship in a NZ port. The vast majority of the US fleet has neither nuclear arms nor power.

Tags: ANZUS, United States

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 22nd, 2012 at 8:16 am and is filed under NZ Politics, United States. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

34 Responses to “The US ship ban ends”

peterwn (2,220) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 8:55 am
The NZ ship ban bit the Yanks badly in the bum. A NZ ship was banned from Pearl Harbour navel base recently and had to tie up at a down-town wharf which was really convenient for the crew.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Monty (871) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:24 am
So looking forward to a US warship visiting. The bigger the better.
Now watch the lefties scream in horror.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
niggly (684) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:28 am
Must be doing the activist’s heads in that Coleman is reaffirming no changes to the no-nukes policy whilst relations with US improve ….
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
tom hunter (3,852) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:39 am
DPF: The silliness which saw the NZ ship have to park down the road from Pearl Harbour
…
peterwn: The NZ ship ban bit the Yanks badly in the bum. A NZ ship was banned from Pearl Harbour navel base recently and had to tie up at a down-town wharf which was really convenient for the crew.

Hang on a second. When that issue was covered in an earlier thread there were at least two comments, one from Paul Buchanan, that pointed out there had been no “snub” by the USN at all.

Here’s the first comment, from slightyrighty:

This whole story is a media beat up of the highest order.

It is being used by the political left to point out that the US is still being mean to us. Lets get some FACTS.

Firstly, berthed next to the Te Kaha is a US NAVY FRIGATE. Do you think the US snubbed that ship as well? The US Navy has been very welcoming and accommodating to the RNZN and its personnel. The RNZN has full access to all USN R&R facilities. There is a basketball tournament among all navies currently at Pearl. The RNZN beat the crew of the USS Cheyenne in the first round. The USS Cheyenne is a nuclear powered attack sub.

Wherever they go, the crew has been welcomed. The ship is berthed 300 meters from Hooters bar. The crew, obviously, is stoked. Anyone who has been to Honolulu will tell you the facilities in and around the Naval Base are not as welcoming to a foreign visitor as downtown Honolulu.

RNZN personnel have visited the Arizona memorial and the USS Missouri in Pearl. They visited in uniform. They did not have to pay, and were given special access guided tours of the Missouri. I can tell you that the crew has been made to feel welcome beyond their expectations.

Some people are reading far too much into where the ship is parked. I know all this as I have a relative on one of the NZ Navy ships, and he cannot speak highly enough of the treatment he and his fellow servicemen have received.

We need to stop reading into circumstances things that don’t exist.

Buchanan makes similar points in the thread here:

Given space constraints due to the excess of foreign grey hulls participating in RIMPAC berthing in the harbor, the call was made to send the Te Kaha to the civilian side along with other naval vessels. If the harbormaster was very senior and remembered the non-nuclear issue, then the decision to send the Te Kaha to the civilian side (300 meters from Hooters, apparently) was more a jab at the Defense Department than at NZ (in that DoD may not have consulted with the USN about berthing implications of the decision to invite NZ to participate in RIMPAC).

More likely is a scenario where a USN 0-6, not thinking about NZ non-nukes but thinking about space and possibly not offending the Russians (who have a boat in the exercise that berthed on the military side), made the call on practical rather than political grounds (size of vessels, overall displacement, force security requirements, willingness to conduct public tours etc.)

Perhaps it’s a joke on blogs, that people don’t bother really reading the comments, or if they do they don’t remember them, even if they’re the blog host?

[DPF: I read that, and while interesting speculation, it ignored the salient point. There may also have been over-crowding at Pearl Harbour, but even if there was not US policy was clear a NZ ship could not berth there. Otherwise it would not be a change of policy they announced. You need to learn the difference between not remember and not agree]
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
kowtow (4,590) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 9:57 am
Yes both TV 1 and 3 covered the NZ ship to Hawaii as a “snub” ,when in fact we know ,through these forums, that that was not the case.
They really are shocking and should be held to account.

I note in my print ODT today the US ship ban makes it to the briefs on page 3 while a house fire (no injuries ) takes up most of the front page.

Given the amount of time and space the NZ media have given to our snubbing ANZUS and the importance of the lifting of the ban has I don’t understand the paucity of comment now it’s going the other way.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
OneTrack (549) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 10:12 am
What will the left do now to stop America getting closer to us
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Reid (13,655) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 10:38 am
What will the left do now to stop America getting closer to us

Let’s hope Metewia and Wussell and Lucy and Keisha all get in a pwotest boat and because they’re politicians and “celebrities” (although who celebrates them isn’t clear) they make the fatal mistake of imagining they’re above the natural laws of physics and, in their mad effort to make a hopeless point somehow have a nasty accident involving a rapidly spinning US Navy prop and their enviwonmentally fweindly wubber duck.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

I expect TV One would probably put one of those black bands across the upper right corner for about a week or so but apart from that, the only regret people would show was that Hulun wasn’t one of the passengers, as well.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
hinamanu (2,347) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 10:38 am
We’ve lost billions due to the ship ban. It’s the exact reason we’re revenued on the roads.

NZ govts won’t let warships in and let revenue flourish from naval personnel.

Although nearly every US warship is outside Iran right now.

The US has the biggest flotilla in history out side Iran. Israeli PM Netanyahu has announced war within 60 days. probably after Christmas. Once the first bomb is dropped the US will join in. Directly at that time every Muslim terroist sleeper cell around the world in every country in the west ( New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK, Europe) will start bombing schools, factories, shops, malls and ever
y public outlet.

The US is broke. It desperately wants to keep the dollar as the reserve currency so the Federal Reserve can keep printing paper currency. Arms sales will increase during this war exponentially.

Also, private US prisons will profit from POW’s. Wall St and the US military industrial complex will benefit to the detriment of the rest of the world.

Horribly, to ensure success this war will become nuclear. THe world is never going to be the same.

Obama will also win this years election, introduce martial law and become the dictator of the US.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
KevinH (977) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:45 am
The resumption of New Zealands relationship with the USA is good news, both countries have been good friends over the years and have stood together when it mattered and will continue to do so. New Zealand and the USA have quarrelled and fallen out over the nuclear issue but have not completely abandoned each other, and now, under President Obama’s tenure, we are reforging that relationship and moving on which is positive for both nations.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
hinamanu (2,347) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:47 am
The US simply wants another coalition of the willing
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Longknives (2,589) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:52 am
This is fucking brilliant. I expect Robyn ‘Drunk Driver’ Malcolm and Keisha ‘Druggie’ Hughes to start pontificating to the media any minute now…they know what’s best for us because they were once on TV don’t you know??

God Bless America!!

“John Wayne’s not dead, he’s frozen
And as soon as we find a cure for cancer
We’re gonna thaw out the Duke and he’s gonna be pretty pissed off
You know why
Have you ever taken a cold shower?
Well multiply that by 15 million times
That’s how pissed off the Duke’s gonna be!”
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
kowtow (4,590) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:03 pm
The US has planes based in Chch for the Antarctic ,but we have a problem with their ships?

We allow a former enemy,Japan, to dock and send sailors to carry out remembrance ceremonies for their dead POWs and yet our ally in WW2 whose navy stopped the Japs from getting here are unwelcome?

What a left wing clusterfuck!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
tom hunter (3,852) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:35 pm
The other thing to recognise is that this is just one small piece of the gigantic process of swinging US strategic focus from the ME to the Pacific, as the Obama administration has been announcing in mostly small, discrete pieces for three years now.

This follows on from several years in the mid-2000′s where various analysts were pointing to China’s efforts in the Pacific to get small island states on board for any number of political support efforts (e.g. keeping pressure on Taiwan). The analysts were deploring the US’s lack of attention and demanding that they get more involved in this region.

We’ll see more on this with NZ and Australia I suspect, especially since the Aussies have been making it very clear for some time that they’re not very happy with NZ’s defence “contributions”. Look for more piggy-backing on US ship visits and such-like.

Of course the whole process is not helped when there is incoherence in the Pacific-China policy, which we saw the other day from Defense Secretary Panetta in his statement that the USA would not take sides in territorial fights in the Pacific. Given what’s been happening between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands I think that such a stance is a bloody big mistake. It reminds me very much of April Glaspie’s discussions with Saddam Hussein in 1990, where she said that the US had no view (or something to the effect) on the Iraq-Kuwait arguments over oil fields and borders. Glaspie was pilloried for that afterward, which I think was unfair, but it’s something I think Panetta has either forgotten or decided does not apply here.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MH (229) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
The USN still has a neither confirm nor deny nuke capability on board policy,even for Coast Guard vessels they ain’t gonna come just yet.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Paulus (1,761) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
The Gweens will call for a referendum. “Keep out Yanks”.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
tom hunter (3,852) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
The USN still has a neither confirm nor deny nuke capability on board policy,even for Coast Guard vessels they ain’t gonna come just yet.

This continues to be raised, but I think it has been well addressed quite some time ago by people who pay attention to the detail in these areas of diplomacy and international relations. One such is Paul Buchanan dealing with it in this 2010 thread,

Andrew W:

It strikes me that point 1 in your quoted passage allows the PM to make discreet inquiries as well as use intel and military assets to determine if a USN vesel is carrying nukes.

In obvious cases such as those I mentioned earlier, he would not have to even ask the question about a nuke presence on board, which relieves the USN of the burden of answering, but under point 1 he could even make non-public inquiries that would give him the answers he needs and which would not force the USN into a definitive statement one way or the other.

Yet until the very last year of the W. Bush administration, the official NZ govt stance was that the USN had to publicly answer the “yes or no” question and the US stance was that it would not (other than to neither confirm or deny). After Condi Rice’s “bump in the road” speech, the path was cleared for a more pragmatic approach to the issue of port visits, which in light of Obama’s clear commitment to denuclearisation and non-proliferation, seems to lead nicely to the potential application of point 1 in order to allow point 2.

The whole “neither confirm nor deny” thing has effectively been removed on both sides. The Yanks are on their way in the next year or two.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MH (229) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 1:38 pm
No way,any vessels will be of such a configuration that they can only be recognised without the aid of Janes Fighting ships as being clearly of a research or tug boat use. No ship worthy of being in the US fleet as a combative asset will be coming. No subs, no aircraft carrier,destroyer etc. Perhaps a logistic sealift or amphibious warfare type. So if someone asked the skipper in port if the vesel was armed would the answer be in breach of the NZ position?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Harriet (1,969) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 1:56 pm
‘…..The ban had become somewhat farcical considering that NZ and US troops were serving together in Afghanistan and the like. The silliness which saw the NZ ship have to park down the road from Pearl Harbour, while Japanese ships could dock, illustrated this…..”

Idiot.

Imagine if you had helped protect someone mostly at your own exspense for several decades and then one day they told you to FUCK OFF. How would you feel?

To my knowledge the US Navy has never sent a bill to the NZ government for the past security arrangements that the US navy bourne the brunt of.

Tell us again please David to what extent the role the NZ Navy played in WW2 in the Pacific!

As for your idiotic comment about the Japanese, would you say the same with regards to the fact that kiwis, aussies and canadians have to queue up at UK immigration to get processed, yet Italian and German visiters get to go through via the fast queue? Of course you wouldn’t.

You have been about as ‘sensational’ as Cambells reporter in CHCH whom you bagged out!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
tom hunter (3,852) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 2:25 pm
So if someone asked the skipper in port if the vesel was armed would the answer be in breach of the NZ position?

Either you did not read Buchanan’s points or you did not understand them. The point is that the government will simply not ask the question you ask – which makes sense since nuclear weapons have been gone from all USN surface combat ships by order of the Commander in Chief for almost twenty years now, rendering the neither confirm nor deny policy of the USN obsolete.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MH (229) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 2:55 pm
What if I asked,even as a Judicial review or an injunction? It is an Act of Parliament after all,or if the Mayor of wellington or Auckland,it doesn’t have to be the PM or the Chief of Defence Staff. More Banksy evasion would not do. I don’t believe in this day and age the major surface weapon platforms of the USN,even if the USS Buccanan is still afloat- are not armed.The policy is not obsolete.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MH (229) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 2:58 pm
USS Buchanan sunk as target in 2000 not too far from J.Keys holiday retreat.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MH (229) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Although the U.S. government in 1992 announced to the world that it had removed all tactical nuclear weapons from its surface ships, attack submarines, and naval aircraft, the Navy has issued a new instruction that orders navy personnel not to tell anyone.

The new instruction, “Release of Information on Nuclear Weapons and on Nuclear Capabilities of U.S. Forces,” was issued by the office of Chief of Naval Operations on February 3, 2006. It reaffirms the so-called Neither Confirm Nor Deny Policy (NCND) by directing that:

“Military members and civilian employees of the Department of the Navy shall not reveal, purport to reveal, or cause to be revealed any information, rumor, or speculation with respect to the presence or absence of nuclear weapons or components on board any specific ship, station or aircraft, either on their own initiative or in response, direct or indirect, to any inquiry.”

At the same time the instruction orders navy personnel not to tell anyone that there are no nuclear weapons onboard U.S. warships, the instruction — which is a public document available on the Navy’s web site — also confirms that it is U.S. policy not to deploy nuclear weapons on the warships:

“It is general U.S. policy not to deploy nuclear weapons aboard surface ships, naval aircraft, attack submarines, or guided missile submarines.”

I know that you know,but don’t ask.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
DJP6-25 (1,100) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 6:01 pm
It’s about time this happened.

cheers

David Prosser
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Viking2 (9,612) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 6:03 pm
kowtow (2,934) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:03 pm

The US has planes based in Chch for the Antarctic ,but we have a problem with their ships?

We allow a former enemy,Japan, to dock and send sailors to carry out remembrance ceremonies for their dead POWs and yet our ally in WW2 whose navy stopped the Japs from getting here are unwelcome?

What a left wing clusterfuck!

Wrong as usual.
The ships have never been unwelcome in NZ. thgey just had to comply with our rules much like you would if or when you entered the USA. The rules were and are clear and haven’t changed. The USA haven’t required them to be changed. Nz hasn’t done anyhting different.
The Yanks have eaten humble pie because the Pacific is their most exposed flank to the rest of the world its see’s as its enemy.
Its desire is to ensure no other enemy can ever approach its shores. Its just that simple.

Its is endeavoiuring to ensure that it has freinds again in the Pacific with the emergence of China, Indonesia and various other countries especially North korea.

As for their war efforts. thay sat on their hands in both www1 and ww2 for a long period before supporting their friends.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
hj (4,095) Says:
September 22nd, 2012 at 8:27 pm
We were told that the opposition to nuclear powered ships was strong and all hell would break loose… but what if we were just told that by the media?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
RF (784) Says:
September 23rd, 2012 at 11:30 am
Love them or hate them – if it was not for the US Marines stopping the Japs in the Battle of the Coral Sea – with a huge loss of life on both sides, this country would be one large rice paddy field.

I do not have a problem with Uncle Sam’s Navy coming into our ports.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Murray (8,833) Says:
September 23rd, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Harriet in answer to your question:

According to TVNZ New Zealand had four (4) vessels involved in World War Two. Well gosh isn’t that cute. Four whole ships!

Is it accurate?

Well lets take a look shall we…

Leander Class Light Cruisers
C70 HMNZS Achilles – ex HMS Achilles, later INS Delhi – Dec 13 1939, New Zealand Ensign first raised in battle by Achilles when engaging the German pocket battleship Graf Spee off the River Plate. Joined ANZAC Sqn operating in the SW Pacific. 5 Jan 1943 while operating with US forces off New Georgia X turret was destroyed by a Japanese bomb. Refitted at Portsmouth and later joined the British Pacific fleet.

C75 HMNZS Leander – ex HMS Leander, returned to RN service 1944. Sank Italian raider Ramb I off the Maldives 27 Feb 1941, as part of Task Group 36.1 enaged a Japanese force near Kolombangara. the Japanese Cruiser Jintsu was sunk and all three allied cruisers were struck by torpedoes. Leander returned to Auckland under own power with an escort of US destroyers. Repairs were not completed until 1945.

Mauritius Class Light Cruiser
C48 HMNZS Gambia – ex HMS Gambia, returned to RN service 1946. Participated in attacks on Japanese positions throughout the Pacific and was under attack by Japanese aircraft when the ceasefire was announced. Credited with being the last shots of WWII. Was present in Tokyo Bay when the surrender was signed.

Castle Class Minesweeper
T00 Wakakura

Bird (Flower) Class Minesweepers
T102 Kiwi Rammed and neutralised Japanese submarine I1 with Moa
T233 Moa Assisted Kiwi in the destruction of Japanese submarine I1, later sunk off Tulagi
T234 Tui

Isles Class Mine sweeping Trawlers
T155 Inchkeith
T160 Sanda
T174 Killegray
T175 Scarba

Castle Class Minesweepers
T17 Hinau (I)
T19 Manuka
T18 Rimu
T348 Tawhai

Castle Class (Anti-Submarine) Minesweepers
T24 Aroha
T25 Awatere
T26 Hautapu
T27 Maimai
T28 Pahau
T34 Waiho
T343 Waikato (not completed)
T33 Waima
T32 Waipu

Modified Flower Class Minesweepers
K385 Arabis – ex RN, returned Royal Navy 1949
K403 Arbutus – ex RN, returned Royal Navy 1949

Armed Merchant Cruiser
F59 HMNZS Monowai – converted merchant, later converted to LSI, returned merchant service 1946

Depot and Receiving Ship
A123 HMNZS Philomel – ex HMS Philomel, sunk at sea 1949

Fairmile B Motor Launches
Q400
Q401
Q402
Q403
Q404
Q405
Q406
Q407
Q408
Q409/P3570 Maori – Sold and renamed Iris Moana 1963
Q410
Q411/P3571 Kahu

Harbour Defence Motor Launches
Q1183/P3551 Mako
Q1184/P3552 Paea
Q1185/P3567 Manga
Q1186
Q1187/P3566 Tarapunga
Q1188/P3556 Takapu
Q1189
Q1190/P3562 Parore
Q1191/P3553 Kahawai
Q1192/P3554 Maroro
Q1193/P3555 Tamure
Q1194/P3561 Ngapona
Q1348/P3563 Kuparu
Q1349/P3565 Haku
Q1350/P3564 Koura
Q1351

Requisitioned Minesweepers
T371 Breeze
– Duchess
– Futurist
– Gale
– Hawera
6 Humphrey
T10 James Cosgrove
T14 Kaiwaka
T15 Kapuni
T372 Matai
M Muritai
– Rata
– Simplon
T08 South Sea
– Thomas Currell
T364 Wairua

Requisitioned Danlayers
– Coastguard
T14 Kaiwaka
T23 Nora Niven
T22 Phyllis

Examination Vessels
– Awanui
– Hauiti
– Ikatere
– Janie Seddon
– Lyttleton
– Tuirangi

Auxiliary Boom Defence Vessels
– Claymore
– Whakaire

OK, the rough count is actually 60. Thank you for playing TVNZ, you get an F for history. It took me 3 minutes to gather this information.

US Admrial Bull Halsey made special mention of the NZ Navy in the contribution it made noting its exceptional professionalism and that it was operating as an integral part of the US Pacific Fleet by the end of the war.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MH (229) Says:
September 23rd, 2012 at 10:32 pm
HMNZS Puriri sunk 14 May 1941.
don’t forget to read Rockies by Jack Harker p138/9 on what Adml Halsey’s impression of NZ’s involvement in the Pacific was after talking to Lt-Cdr Connolly DSC,who had all the latest asdic equipment on Moa on its delivery run to NZ,but was more concerned with getting back to “fight” an election in NZ, so when the ML’s arrived they were put on harbour patrols and fixed anchor watches !!!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Paul G. Buchanan (292) Says:
September 24th, 2012 at 5:23 am
Following up on Tom Hunter’s Sept 22 9:39 post and DPF’s reply.

There seems to be confusion on DPF’s part, which echos the NZ media’s ignorance of or dismissal of the protocols governing RNZN ship visits to US ports before this latest annoucement resuming full port visits. Prior to the announcement, RNZN vessles needed a waiver to enter US ports. These waivers were granted on a case-by-case basis. That was done in the case of the 2012 RIMPAC exercises. Once the waiver is granted, RNZN vessles are allowed to berth wherever the local harbormaster deems fit. As I said in the comment that Tom quoted, there were logistical issues involved in sending the NZ ships to the cruise ship docks in Honululu rather than the military berths at Pearl Harbor, and there was no deliberate snub involved, either by the harbormaster or the USG.

That interpretation was a NZ media and politician invention, perceiving slight where there was none. Since the announcement of the full restoration of port visit privileges was months if not years in the making, the idea that the US would deliberately snub NZ after the US extended the invitation to participate in an exercise held just a couple of months before Secretary Panetta’s visit is simply ludicrous. In fact, the US saw the RIMPAC invitation as a public signal of the better relations to come, which is why the reaction by some in NZ was seen in DC as an odd case of reading too much into a minor berthing conundrum. Phrased another way: some folk in NZ are very quick to take offense when it comes to the US, perhaps because they carry a very large chip on very small shoulders. Time to move on.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Manolo (10,207) Says:
September 24th, 2012 at 6:34 am
..some folk in NZ are very quick to take offense when it comes to the US, perhaps because they carry a very large chip on very small shoulders.

Never better said. Spot on.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Murray (8,833) Says:
September 24th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Shit HDML actually stands for Harbour Defence Motor Launch. Who knew?

A command that size was good enough for JFK.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
kowtow (4,590) Says:
September 24th, 2012 at 8:09 am
V2
paul buchanan’s second last sentence is for you .
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
ChardonnayGuy (597) Says:
September 24th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Yes, but we do live in a multipolar world now. We do need to keep China onside, given that it is our second largest trading partner ahead of the United States- and one day, may overtake Australia in that regard. New Zealand should be investing far more in Chinese cultural and linguistic literacy and Chinese political and social studies than we are, so that our exporters have a better idea of how we can access and grow Chinese market segments. And what’s so leftist about that? Most people on the centre-left and centre-right of the political spectrum would probably agree with me.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MH (229) Says:
September 24th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
9 Entry into internal waters of New Zealand
(1) When the Prime Minister is considering whether to grant approval to the entry of foreign warships into the internal waters of New Zealand, the Prime Minister shall have regard to all relevant information and advice that may be available to the Prime Minister including information and advice concerning the strategic and security interests of New Zealand.

(2) The Prime Minister may only grant approval for the entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by foreign warships if the Prime Minister is satisfied that the warships will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device upon their entry into the internal waters of New Zealand.

from the Act,so the leader of the HM loyal Oppo or the Grins asks the PM whether he can guarantee that the vessel entering a NZ harbour is not carrying Nukes. He then replies “I can neither confirm nor deny’ The Mayor of Wellington asks,what is the reply? None has answered the question to my satisfaction. The legislation says he will be satisfied that it will not be,the Captain of the Buchanan was driving a vessel that was considered merely capable of carrying nukes,but because the USN was unwilling to neither confirm nor deny, it was declined entry. Semantics may be,but the situation for entry to NZ has not changed. So only the PM has to be satisfied,and he keeps saying that ad nauseum,like Mr Banks has my full confidence. And the USN commander hides away in his wardroom for the whole visit? No mayoral reception nothing,no sailor allowed ashore in case they are asked….
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Kiwiblog