NZ should be a proud world leader on nukes

49 comments on “NZ should be a proud world leader on nukes ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Salsy 1

   13 April 2010 at 11:25 pm

   And in true Key style – gets invited to a nuclear disarmament meeting as an innovative leader in this area, expected to make another “it takes a raindrop to start a flood” speech, but no… He stands around looking like an uncomfortable, out of depth moron, desparate for another smile and wave opportunity to add to his facebook page.
2. gingercrush 2

   13 April 2010 at 11:27 pm

   Or Obama basically legitimises Israeli attacks on Iran. But you know you soft-lefties go on ahead and pat yourselves for being so deluded. Also it doesn’t matter what Obama believes because the politics in American political institutions and America’s relationship with Israel and traditional conservative orthodoxy means nothing will ever change.
   • Marty G 2.1

     14 April 2010 at 12:05 am

     I don’t see Obama endorsing anything Israel does.

     Israel didn’t even send its PM, so they don’t have much claim to use this as a pre-text for ‘involuntary disarmament’.

     If anything, this is a slap in the face for Israel, which doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of its own nuclear arsenal.
     • zugzug 2.1.1

       14 April 2010 at 7:58 am

       out of your depth as always GC, sometimes i wonder why you bother…
3. Jim Nald 3

   13 April 2010 at 11:59 pm

   Heh ! John Key, the reluctant beneficiary of NZ’s nuclear-free policy.

   He should start by thanking his predecessors who had the spine, eloquence and vision.

   Oh well … some backpedalling or a time-out pause required for now.
   Not gone by lunchtime. Not today’s lunchtime.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     14 April 2010 at 12:32 am

     Recent developments really put a new light on Brash’s “gone by lunchtime” remark.
4. Steve 4

   14 April 2010 at 12:50 am

   What Jonkey is finding hard to stomach is he is there because of the guts a Labour government had to stand up and be counted. To stand up and show vision. And he can’t speak out on that because he’d have to acknowledge the likes of David Lange and Helen Clark as visionaries who could see that our day would come. I might be doing the PM a disservice but he might actually feel embarrassed that he’s being patted on the back for something he’s given not a jot of notice to in his life except to criticise it. He’s admitted to never having gone on a march in his life where he had to peg his colours to the mast and actually stand up for something. What he shows though when he stands up next to his buddy Obama (on the lineup to shake his hand…and that’s his “off to the side meeting” we’re hearing about!!) is a man who looks out of his depth, looks nervous, looks like a stage/star struck teenager in front of the stars!

   We might be small but by God, what a coup to be 25years ahead of these so called 1st world countries. When Key says we have to close the gap with Australia shouldn’t he be looking at the things like our nuclear policy which we’ve actually achieved in a quiet, independent way and stepped way ahead of our Tasman cousins.

   Key and the Nacts are so focused on monetary gains that they forget how morally bankrupt Australia has become since the John Howard days. And he wants us to join them. No, give me a country with a ramrod strong moral fibre any day ahead of one which sells its soul for a short term monetary gain.
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   14 April 2010 at 1:09 am

   And one wonders if he really believes in a nuclear-free New Zealand if he is not willing to talk about it.

   Jonkey doesn’t believe in NZ and neither does the rest of National. This can be seen in the “NZ Sux” campaign that they continuously run. In their attempts to copy other, larger nations especially the US.

   He stands around looking like an uncomfortable, out of depth moron, desparate for another smile and wave opportunity to add to his facebook page.

   Yeah, I noticed that as well. He definitely didn’t have the confidence that you’d expect of a nations prime minister.
6. the sprout 6

   14 April 2010 at 1:10 am

   How wonderful that Mr Key should be basking in the glory of our n-free status. Now that he’s such an acolyte of our world-leading nuclear free ways, someone should ask Mr Key:

   When did he convert to supporting nuclear free legislation?

   Did he oppose his preceding National Leader’s “gone by lunchtime” stance towards our nuclear free status?

   What did he think about the N-ship protests that brave, visionary New Zealanders staged in the 70s and 80s, or is it, as with the Springbok Tour, that he “can’t remember what side he was on”?

   And does he not think Pete Bethune an equally brave, visionary New Zealander?
   • felix 6.1

     14 April 2010 at 2:11 am

     Anyone else wondering when Key is going to show how “ambushuss for new zilnd” he is? Cos I ain’t seen it yet.

     In fact it seems like every time he has an opportunity to stick up for us kiwis he sides with anyone but. Any nat supporters got any examples of positive proof of his “ambushion”?

     This is a prime example: on the choice of song for the rugby world cup, Key said “using an international song that’s so well known makes a lot of sense”.

     Leaving aside the obvious falsehood of his premise – the song he refers to was only a hit in a few English speaking countries i.e. England, NZ and Australia – is that any kind of an expression of national pride? Is that the extent of his “ambushion”?

     The idea of using the world cup to promote kiwi songs or artists is completely lost on him because at a fundamental level he simply does not identify with us. He doesn’t see himself as one of us. In a very real sense isn’t one of us. His money has allowed him to exist outside of the confines of such archaic constructs as “nationhood”.

     Remember when he went to America and proudly boasted about how he’d spent a lot of money there shopping because ‘they really need it’ or some such. No thought for our own businesses who could just as easily use his cash – no, this is a global man with no loyalty but to whoever’s being the boss.
     I’m left with the distinct impression that he’d prefer
     • the sprout 6.1.1

       14 April 2010 at 2:15 am

       well put
     • luva 6.1.2

       14 April 2010 at 5:41 am

       “ambushuss for new zilnd’

       Are you mocking John for his broad Kkwi accent. If so why?

       Some on the left get very upset when Ms Clark is mocked for her broad kiwi accent and her bloke like monotone.

       Lets play what he says rather than the way he says it aye Felix.
       • luva 6.1.2.1

         14 April 2010 at 5:44 am

         Edit not working….Kkwi should read Kiwi

         [lprent: Off because of a conflict with the cache. Will fix when we upgrade the server in a few days. ]
       • The Voice of Reason 6.1.2.2

         14 April 2010 at 7:36 am

         Exaggeration is a common part of humour, Luva. Think about newspaper satirists. Where would Tom Scott be if he had to draw accurate portraits, not cartoons?

         Key has a weirdly broad accent for someone who hasn’t lived in NZ for most of his adult life. I reckon he puts it on, much as Jim Bolger affected an American accent in the years after he went to Washington.

         Still, what annoys me most about the things he says is not the accent, it’s the bullshit. Dollars to donuts, Obama did not say NZ had “well and truly earned our place at the table” as Key claimed yesterday.
     • Rob 6.1.3

       14 April 2010 at 9:07 am

       So you think he selected the song?
       • felix 6.1.3.1

         14 April 2010 at 9:12 am

         No. I quoted his comments. Do I stutter or something?
         • Rob 6.1.3.1.1

           14 April 2010 at 9:25 am

           I am not sure , do you.

           You are coming across a little obsessed , producing a rambling story from a one line quote that does not even relate to the thread is a little desperate.
           • felix 6.1.3.1.1.1

             14 April 2010 at 9:30 am

             So either respond to it substantively or forget about it and stop wasting your time.
             • Rob …

               14 April 2010 at 9:51 am

               Ok don’t get unglued here, but a little rational thought might go a long way before you jump directly into slagging someone who had no choice in the matter but understands the bigger picture about RWC2011 a lot more deeply than you do.

               With the song selection issue, you are a little confused as to its role. It is theme music to support a 45 sec TVC to drive international ticket sales, which will be flighted through many diverse international media’s.

               The selection of theme music was driven by a consistent advertising strategy that would gain cut through in over 90 international markets. The role of the add is to sell tickets, which is crucially important to the financial success of the event. By choosing music that was already known makes the whole issue a lot easier for international markets to understand.

               I know you will come back with the wasted opportunity line about how we can showcase a unique local talent etc. The fact remains that there is a much bigger issue here and you have 45 secs to get a ‘call to action’ response from audiences that span UK, France, Sth Africa, Sth America, USA, Canada etc.
             • felix …

               14 April 2010 at 10:21 am

               Exactly. Playing it safe trumps ambition every time.

               I think you’re getting it.
7. LilyM 7

   14 April 2010 at 7:01 am

   He looks uncomfortable because they never have been committed to New Zealand’s nuclear free status and would have changed it in a second if it hadn’t been political suicide. Their antics with mining are on a par with tinkering with nuclear free … Kiwis will not wear it. How sick making to watch John Key take credit for New Zealand’s conscience about nuclear issues. Well it was good for a laughing, snorting start to the day.
8. mickysavage 8

   14 April 2010 at 8:06 am

   Good post Eddie.

   David Lange had IMHO the most poignant description of the madness of the nuclear bomb race. He talked about “refining an existing capacity to make the rubble bounce and bounce and bounce”. This was in the 1980s when New Zealand’s actions were very brave and we were subject to the most intense pressure by the US.

   With the benefit of hindsight it is very clear that NZ was right. This is a legacy that Key should accept graciously and talk about continuously. Why so quiet John?
9. mickysavage 9

   14 April 2010 at 8:10 am

   Hi SYSOP

   Can you correct my title, it defaulted to my email for some reason.
10. Name 10

    14 April 2010 at 8:45 am

    NZ’s “nuclear-free” policy goes much further than prohibiting nuclear arms – which, let’s face it, NZ was never going to get anyway. It prohibits all things nuclear, including nuclear power-plants and nuclear-powered shipping.

    Is this really something we should feel warm and fuzzy about? Yes early nuclear technology was dirty and dangerous, and mistakes were made. Now it’s far less dirty and dangerous, and lessons have been learned from the mistakes. Sure it would be better not to have them, but if you want electricity to power your cars and your life you have to generate it, and the only alternatives to nuclear (which is cheap and reliable) are dams across rivers, coal boilers, diesel generators, vast, expensive and unreliable or solar wind-farms or hydrothermal schemes. For Key to stand up in the US and say that everyone should follow the example of NZ and ban anything nuclear is akin to asking India, China and the other developing nations to power that development with coal and environmental destruction just as we and the West did.

    The inability of the people of New Zealand to differentiate between nuclear weapons and nuclear power, reflected in its Government and this article and its commentators, is childish, stupid and neurotic.
    • mickysavage 10.1

      14 April 2010 at 9:19 am

      But nuclear is neither cheap nor reliable. It is the most expensive power there is to produce and that is before you have to factor in the cost of storage and disposal of the radioactive residue. It is also not carbon neutral if you factor in the amount of CO2 produced in the mining of Uranium and in the construction of the power stations. Wind and Solar are way better and have the added benefit of having no radioactive residue to dispose of.

      Why is it that there have been no nuclear stations built in the last couple of decades? The reason is that they were required to provide fissionable material for bombs and once the nuclear arms race stalled they were no longer required.

      Hear about Three Mile Island or Chernobyl? If nuclear is so cool then why are there no nuclear power stations being built apart from one in Iran the motivation for which is of concern?
      • nzfp 10.1.1

        14 April 2010 at 10:25 am

        Hey mickysavage,
        You said “If nuclear is so cool then why are there no nuclear power stations being built apart from one in Iran the motivation for which is of concern”. you may be interested to know that the Guardian UK reported 16/Jan/2009 the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is “in line to become first Arab country with nuclear power”. The UAE’s desire is identical to Irans. Both Iran and the UAE are rich in oil and gas resources & both Nations intend to build a nuclear power program to reduce their requirement for domestic consumption in order to increase the volume of Oil & Gas for export & profit.

        The world Nuclear Association reported in March 2010 “Mainland China has 11 nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, 20 under construction, and more about to start construction soon”. We know that China has an estimated arsenal of 300 – 400 nuclear weapons and do not need to hide the fact they are building them as a deterent.

        What is of grave concern is that Israel with an estimated 200 – 400 nuclear weapons and a nuclear power station (Dimona) has decided not to attend.
        • Rich 10.1.1.1

          15 April 2010 at 9:12 pm

          I can think of two reasons why the UAE wants nuclear power plants.

          The first is that their rulers will get a shitload of bribe money from the construction companies (see Al Yamamah).

          The second is that they will have the opportunity to divert fuel for nuclear weapons. Maybe not immediately, but once you have a powerplant, the next step is to reprocess the spent fuel into plutonium. If you don’t have the powerplant and decide you want to make nukes, you’d have to start by building the plant.
          • nzfp 10.1.1.1.1

            15 April 2010 at 10:45 pm

            Hey Rich,
            You said “[…] they will have the opportunity to divert fuel for nuclear weapons”, would you elaborate on this please? How would a nation like Iran or the UAE divert the material when the IAEA can account for every gram of nuclear material going into or out of the enrichment facilities?

            Scott Ritter, former Marine Corps intelligence officer and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and author of numerous books, including “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” and “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change” best describes the IAEA inspection routines and the IAEA’s ability to account for all of Iran’s nuclear material in the recent 30 Sept 2009 interview with Scott Horton on antiwar.com. Ritter also outlines possible total war scenarios following an Israeli or US strike on Iran. You can find the interview here:
            http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/09/30/scott-ritter-9/

            Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., Chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation where his policy work focuses on nuclear nonproliferation, missile defense, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, military policy, nuclear terrorism, and other national security issues describes US wargame scenarios following an Israeli or US strike on Iran. You can find the interview here:
            http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/03/25/lt-general-robert-g-gard-jr/

            It should be noted that neither Scott Ritter or Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. describe positive outcomes following a US or Israeli strike on Iran, and neither of them expand their scenarios to include N.A.T.O, Russia or China.
          • nzfp 10.1.1.1.2

            15 April 2010 at 10:50 pm

            Hey Rich,
            If you are interested, Grant F. Smith, director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C., discusses Israel’s underwhelming representation at the Nuclear Security summit, the 1960s diversion of highly enriched uranium from Pennsylvania to Israel’s nuclear weapons program on today’s edition of antiwar radio. You can find Scott Horton’s interview with Grant F. Smith here:
            http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/04/14/grant-f-smith-7/

            Smith is the author of many books including “Spy Trade: How Israel’s Lobby Undermines America’s Economy”, “America’s Defense Line: The Justice Department’s Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government” and “Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal”.
      • Lanthanide 10.1.2

        14 April 2010 at 10:31 am

        Basically everything you’ve said in your post is wrong, but I don’t have time to refute it point by point.

        However; “According to a 2007 story broadcast on 60 Minutes, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe”

        Read, and be informed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
        • mickysavage 10.1.2.1

          14 April 2010 at 4:00 pm

          Munch, munch …

          [The sound of MS eating humble pie]

          Agreed Lanthanide and NZFP, my statements were not properly researched and based on an impression which was probably formed in the 1990s when it was true.

          Although I stand by the comments concerning the cost, difficulty to deal with the residue and the fact that it is not “Carbon neutral” generation.
          • Lanthanide 10.1.2.1.1

            14 April 2010 at 4:28 pm

            I will grant you cost to build the initial plant is high, a lot of which is to do with red tape and greeny objections. But over an expected lifetime of 40-60 years, nuclear power can be the cheapest form of electricity – cheaper than coal and hydro. It can also be one of the most expensive, depending on the particular plant, where funding came from, etc, etc.

            As far as difficulty to deal with the residue – actually the task is very easy, the problem it is that it is very politically fraught. The nuts and bolts of it are quite simple, easy, and effective, it is the political side of it that is difficult. If “next-generation” reactors are built, a lot of the existing waste could be re-used as fuel. Nuclear plants also put out far less (volume) radioactive waste than coal plants do, and their waste is all contained in nice lumps whereas coal plants belch it into the air for everyone to suffer from.

            If you are going to claim that nuclear power isn’t carbon neutral because you have to dig up uranium, then solar panels and wind mills aren’t carbon neutral either because you have to dig up the materials to build them, and same goes for hydro plants. Obviously nuclear power plants are going to have higher on-going fuel costs than wind mills and solar panels, but that depends on how broad you are being with your definition of ‘fuel’. I would suggest that nuclear power plants tend to be situated closer to major residential areas than wind mills (in the country on hilltops) and most industrial solar plants (in deserts and areas with low land values), so if you’re looking at whole lifetime costs, you need to be including the fuel used by engineers that have to drive to and from the sites for maintenance etc, which would generally be lower for nuclear plants.
            • Salsy 10.1.2.1.1.1

              14 April 2010 at 5:13 pm

              The issue wth Nuclear power plants is that they are incredibly dangerous in a all forms, expensive as HELL, and largely un-green. Uranium is a scarce resouce, and will be gone in as little as 30 years, the radioactive waste and potential for disaster outweighs any pros in terms of green based efficency. Hydro IS sustainable, wind IS sustainable, solar IS sustainable.

              Despite your attempt to explain the safety of powerstations i.e radio active waste is easy get rid of – once we invest the next generation machines to do it (er how about a time machine??), the most critical point worth making here is this:

              Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

              http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability
            • Salsy 10.1.2.1.1.2

              14 April 2010 at 5:16 pm

              @Lanthanide

              The issue wth Nuclear power plants is that they are incredibly dangerous in a all forms, expensive as HELL, and largely un-green and certainly not sustanable . Uranium is a scarce resouce, and will be gone in as little as 30 years, the radioactive waste absolutely IS dangerous and difficult and the potential for environmental disaster outweighs any pros in terms of green based efficency. Hydro IS sustainable, wind IS sustainable, solar IS sustainable.

              Despite your attempt to explain the safety of nuclear energy, perhaps the most sobering arguement in it all lies here:

              Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

              http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability
      • nzfp 10.1.3

        14 April 2010 at 2:01 pm

        TO: Moderators, lprent?

        Hi there,
        I posted a response to mickysavage this morning but as yet it hasn’t appeared. Is there any reason why the comment was blocked? This is a genuine question because I’d like to know if I commented on something, referenced something or did something that is regarded as inappropriate for this forum. I would like to continue contributing to the forum so I would like to know what I did so as to avoid doing so in the future

        -nzfp
        
        [lprent: Got caught in the spam trap, probably because of too many links.
        We’ve been getting a lot of spam, so have been a bit slow to clean it up. ]
      • Rich 10.1.4

        15 April 2010 at 9:07 pm

        before you have to factor in the cost of storage and disposal of the radioactive residue

        Yup, and the insurance (most nuclear states get round this by not indemnifying nuclear plants from risk, which basically means the taxpayer carries the risk of any accidents. Then there’s decomissioning the plant after 50 or so years, which typically costs more than construction.
11. Joe Bloggs 11

    14 April 2010 at 8:53 am

    interesting to hear Sir Geoffrey Palmer over last weekend proposing the resumption of US ship visits.

    Could it be that he recognises the modern generation don’t give a toss about our nuclear-free status?

    Or is it because continuing to thumb our nuclear-free noses at America will compromise our ability to lift our economic standard through a free trade agreement with the Great Satan?

    Either way, Phil Goff should be taking note – he could learn a few things
    • mickysavage 11.1

      14 April 2010 at 9:14 am

      Wrong on two counts Joe.

      1. The nuclear free policy was about standing up and saying that the Nuclear Arms race was insane. It made everyone less safe, still has the world one mistake away from utter devastation, and the resources invested in it could have made a huge dent in world poverty if they had been redirected.

      2. A FTA with the United States will not improve our quality of life. Ask Canada or Mexico how they fared after entering into FTAs with the Grand Satan.

      Captcha Rubbish!!
      • Bill 11.1.1

        14 April 2010 at 11:53 am

        The nuclear arms race was insane….sure. Right up until Goff refused to use NZ’s veto on non-proliferation issues and gave the green light for sales of nuclear technology by the US to India…in return for talks on a FTA with the US.

        That’s the same India that sits next to a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear China with all types of disintegrations happening around the region.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/565225
      • Joe Bloggs 11.1.2

        14 April 2010 at 12:32 pm

        Wrong on which counts?

        Geoff Palmer DID propose the resumption of ship visits didn’t he?

        I’m not debating the original intent behind the nuclear free policy and shame on you for suggesting I am. I’m pointing out the fact that to the modern generation of kids coming into the workforce, the issue is not a priority or of any particular relevance to their daily lives.

        If you want to poor-mouth Mexico then look to the internal corruption in the country that has created such disparities in wealth between the peons and Carlos Slim – that’s not the result of an FTA.

        As for Canada, interesting that Canada came through the global economic crisis better than other countries because it’s a primary producer with a strong commodity export industry to USA. Incidentally Canada doesn’t have a true FTA with USA even now – US funds major transportation projects from Washington and Canada doesn’t get a clear look at these..
        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.2.1

          14 April 2010 at 12:44 pm

          Well one of the counts you are wrong on, is that Palmer doesn’t suggest we were thumbing our noses at the US, or that we should stop doing so if that is in fact what we were doing.

          What he said was that we should keep our policy, and that the world has changed so much that our doing so should no longer be an impediment to US naval visits.

          Mexico is rapidly sliding towards narco-state territory, a fact not unrelated to US efforts and hypocrisy. This is far more relevant to the Mexican economy than NAFTA.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.2

      14 April 2010 at 1:13 pm

      The US empire, like all previous empires, will disappear into the dustbin of history. I don’t see any point in joining it there.
12. Cnr Joe 12

    14 April 2010 at 9:47 am

    Awesome, just awesome,
    we plainly got asked along because of our substantial stockpile of nukes..no…invited because of our strategic american bases….no….our reserves of uranium, plutonium, unobtanium…no…because we have this Nuclear Free status?
    Wtf can Pin-The-Policy-On-The-Jonkey have thought on the plane over? ‘Gee they must’y luvved me on Letterman?’
13. Bill 13

    14 April 2010 at 10:11 am

    So Obama wants rid of nuclear arms but is too clever to argue for getting rid of nuclear arms.

    Seriously?

    How about as an alternative take, an ‘internationally agreed’ control of materials offers a pretext for bombing the shit out of Iran or anyone else that comes up on the radar who is not one of the 40 countries signed to the ‘international agreement’ allowing the US to call the shots and possibly circumventing any pesky UN objections to proposed courses of action?

    No. That’s too convoluted. Obama is a smart boy. Obama is not arguing anti-nuclear in order to secure an anti-nuclear agenda.

    Which is also why JK isn’t mentioning NZs anti nuclear stance. He’s being clever too. Obviously.

    Or it could just be that ‘anti nuclear’ has as much to do with this National Security Summit as the price of cheese.
    • Bill 13.1

      14 April 2010 at 10:18 am

      that should be Nuclear Security Summit, not ‘National’…but you knew that.
14. felix 14

    14 April 2010 at 10:13 am

    He’s just such a Brian.
15. tc 15

    14 April 2010 at 10:56 am

    Maybe Obama just wants some feelgood statesman like event after the bruising healthcare reform process and with a jab at those war-mongering beligerent Israeli’s thrown in who could resist.

    Presidents come and go but the military keeps on keeping on as the real issue for terrorsism is enriched uranium and it’s manufacture/use rather than stockpiled weapons they’d struggle to deploy anyway…..aside from all those missing suitcase A bombs the russians can’t account for that is.
16. The Voice of Reason 16

    14 April 2010 at 2:23 pm

    This is the White House briefing note re: Key’s meting with VP Biden. The last sentence is interesting as I don’t recall John Boy mentioning that he talked with Biden about starting World War 3.

    The White House

    Office of the Vice President

    For Immediate Release April 12, 2010
    Readout of the Vice President’s Meeting with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key
    Earlier today, the Vice President met with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key who is in Washington to participate in the President’s Nuclear Security Summit (NSS). New Zealand is an important partner in Afghanistan, on global issues ranging from nuclear non-proliferation to climate change, and on trade as a negotiating partner in the Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement. The Vice President thanked Prime Minister Key for his close cooperation on the NSS agenda and goals, and expressed his appreciation for New Zealand’s strong support in Afghanistan. The Vice President and Prime Minister Key also discussed how our two countries can cooperate further on regional and global matters and work closely together at the United Nations, including on issues such as Iran.
    • Jim Nald 16.1

      14 April 2010 at 8:33 pm

      @ VoR

      National’s logic is fundamentally that which has been expressed by Simon Power:
      “we go where America goes”.

      Just try to live with it, dear

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS