logo
Rainbow Warrior bombing 40th anniversary: Advocates warn of expanding nuclearism in Pacific

Rainbow Warrior bombing 40th anniversary: Advocates warn of expanding nuclearism in Pacific

RNZ News3 days ago
The Rainbow Warrior was bombed in Auckland Harbour, New Zealand, in July 1985.
Photo:
Greenpeace / John Miller
As Thursday marks 40 years since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, anti-nuclear advocates warn the Pacific region is facing expanding nuclearism through developments like the AUKUS pact.
On 10 July 1985,
French agents bombed the Greenpeace protest ship
while it was moored at Marsden Wharf in Tāmaki Makaurau.
Crew member and photographer Fernando Pereira was killed. At the time, the ship was preparing to confront French nuclear testing in French Polynesia's Moruroa atoll.
Hilda Halkyard-Harawira, one of Aotearoa's leading anti-nuclear advocates in the1980s, was on board the Rainbow Warrior a day before it was bombed.
"Ngāti Whātua [and] Joe Hawke invited my mother-in-law and myself to go on board to welcome the Rainbow Warrior into the harbour in Tāmaki.
"They took us around and showed us and I can remember thinking: 'Wow, these fellas have got automatic washing machines and … dryers on their on their boat'."
The next day, while driving up north, Halkyard-Harawira heard news of the overnight bombing.
"We were just stunned really.
"It really was a statement about the impact that Greenpeace had on shaming France over the nuclear testing in the Pacific."
Listen:
The attack thrust the region's Nuclear-Free and Independent movement into headlines around the world. It also proved pivotal for Halkyard-Harawira and other advocates in Aotearoa because it turned public sentiment against nuclear regimes, particularly those of the US and France which were testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific.
"I think that the best thing was that the New Zealand government exposed it ... [because] you know, that was an international terrorist attack on Aotearoa.
"And I think the really good thing was the stamina of Greenpeace and other activists to get back up and carry on."
Two years later, New Zealand cemented its nuclear-free stance through the 1987 Nuclear-Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act.
The policy was implemented against the wishes of the US and the UK, which were both nuclear weapon states.
Now, these countries, alongside Australia, have formed the AUKUS security pact. The pact was set up in 2021 to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. Currently, the New Zealand government is
considering whether to participate
in "pillar two" of the pact. It has said this aspect of the pact is an
"advanced technology-sharing partnership"
that has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
Pacific historian Marco de Jong from AUT's law school said AUKUS - pillar one and two - was a prime example of developments that undermined Aotearoa and the wider region's nuclear-free stance.
"There's a question as to the extent in which the two pillars can be disentangled. And certainly we see AUKUS set a number of nuclear-proliferation precedents - the first by which Australia, a non-nuclear weapon state, is set to receive highly-enriched uranium.
"Beyond … pillar one and two, the joint-interoperability implications of the de-facto stationing and more permanent rotation of US and UK nuclear-capable assets [bomber planes] through the north and west of Australia has implications for the Treaty of Rarotonga," de Jong said.
The 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga established the South Pacific as a nuclear-free zone. Thirteen Pacific nations signed it, including Australia and New Zealand.
De Jong and Greenpeace Aotearoa said New Zealand's interest in pillar two of AUKUS went against the spirit of the Treaty. Specifically, de Jong said it added to a "new nuclearism" facing the region.
"We should be clear that nuclear powers have exposed affected communities in places like Australia, Kiribati, Māo'hi Nui [French Polynesia], the Marshall Islands to
the harmful effects of ionising radiation
.
"Now, a new generation has to contend with what I would term a new nuclearism in the Pacific.
"We're confronted by emergent threats like the Fukushima discharge and AUKUS, and they really risk compounding unaddressed legacies of nuclear harm."
Russel Norman, executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa, said New Zealand's participation in AUKUS, even under pillar two, was incompatible with being nuclear-free.
Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman.
Photo:
Greenpeace
"At its heart are nuclear-propelled submarines with cruise missiles on board that can be nuclear-armed ... and for the New Zealand government to sign up to any part of that, I think, is certainly in breach with the spirit of nuclear-free New Zealand, if not a technical breach," Norman said.
A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters disagreed. He said in a statement that both pillars of AUKUS had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
"AUKUS pillar two is an advanced technology-sharing partnership. It is not an offensive defence agreement or treaty.
"AUKUS pillar one, involving the UK, US and Australia … relates to nuclear-powered submarines, not precluded by the Treaty of Rarotonga."
The spokesman also highlighted two "pre-conditions" for New Zealand's participation in pillar two of AUKUS.
"First, New Zealand would have to be invited.
"Second, the New Zealand government would then have to weigh up the costs of pillar two and decide whether participating in AUKUS pillar two is consistent with, and advances, our national interests."
A dawn service was being held by Greenpeace in Auckland on Thursday to commemorate the Rainbow Warrior bombing.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

No need for bill protecting campus free speech, unis and legal experts say
No need for bill protecting campus free speech, unis and legal experts say

RNZ News

time17 hours ago

  • RNZ News

No need for bill protecting campus free speech, unis and legal experts say

Paul Rishworth KC says academic freedom is already protected in the Education Act, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech. Photo: RNZ / Alexander Robertson Universities and legal experts say there is no need for a bill protecting free speech on campus . But the legislation's supporters say universities can't be trusted to uphold freedom of expression. Parliament's Education and Workforce Select Committee has been hearing submissions on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No. 2). If passed, it would require universities to develop a freedom of expression statement and complaints procedure, and report annually on it. The Law Society told the committee the bill created "needless complexity" because freedom of expression was already protected by law. Paul Rishworth KC said freedom of expression was of the utmost importance, but the bill was not necessary. He said academic freedom was already protected in the Education Act and the Bill of Rights protected free speech. "So, to add in to the Education Act a requirement that there be a statement on freedom of expression, introduces a needless complexity," he said. University staff warned the bill would force universities to host speakers spreading misinformation and hate speech. Tertiary Education Union co-president Julie Douglas told the committee there was a lack of evidence that universities were limiting free speech. "What we have now is a functioning model which does not need this level of monitoring," she said. Douglas said universities were special places but were being undermined "with a disregard for science, with a disregard for evidence , with a disregard for expert opinion". "I fear that this sort of move by the government with this sort of clause is meddling in a place where it's just not required," she said. University of Otago vice-chancellor Grant Robertson and Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan appeared before the committee together. They said the law was unnecessary, but if it was to go ahead universities wanted to reduce the associated compliance requirements. "We don't think it's either necessary nor a proportionate response to the issues that are there," Robertson said. Whelan said a similar complaints system in the UK had been "weaponised". New Zealand Initiative senior fellow Dr James Kierstead said staff and student surveys and 21 separate cases proved that universities were not protecting freedom of expression. Kierstead said the problem included staff fearful of losing their jobs if they voiced unpopular opinions and speakers refused the right to appear on campus. "It suggests that university senior management cannot be relied upon to uphold their obligations to academic freedom. If we have plentiful evidence that ordinary academics and students feel stifled and no evidence that senior management is going to solve the problem, then legislation is the only solution." Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said the organisation was sad the legislation was needed. Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith He said students could cope with hearing challenging ideas and opinions. "We should not let a small group of students use their vulnerability... and work with university managers to stop other students hearing views that they think are dangerous," he said. "Free debate, free and open to ideas is part of being an academic, it is part of being a student and universities need to allow that." Canterbury University biological sciences professor Tammy Steeves told the committee should not be required to host any event or speaker . She said academics could judge whether ideas were robust and evidence-based. Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said the legislation was likely to backfire. "It will actually make it worse for free speech on campus, it will politicise it, it will mean that opposing speech on campus will become a political act because it will be seen as opposing the government and I think it will be bad." Geddis said he was on a committee that drew up the university's free speech statement and statement of institutional neutrality. He said translating those statements into legal requirements would be a mistake. "I don't think actually it's the role of government to be trying to impose views on how universities as institutions ought to work. I think that's a dangerous imposition into the autonomy of them as institutions." Geddis said maintaining a culture of free speech would be more effective than making laws. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

'It is an interesting time' - Tania Simpson takes over as chair of Waitangi Trust
'It is an interesting time' - Tania Simpson takes over as chair of Waitangi Trust

RNZ News

time20 hours ago

  • RNZ News

'It is an interesting time' - Tania Simpson takes over as chair of Waitangi Trust

Tania Te Rangingangana Simpson, new Chair of the Waitangi National Trust Board. Photo: Supplied/Waitangi National Trust Tania Te Rangingangana Simpson, new chair of the Waitangi National Trust Board. The new chairperson of the Waitangi National Trust Board says she intends to hit the ground running in what will ultimately be a short term. Tania Te Rangingangana Simpson ONZM becomes the first wāhine to hold the role of chair since the trust's establishment in 1932, replacing Pita Tipene who stepped down last month after serving for the maximum length of nine years. Simpson has served as a trustee of the Waitangi National Trust since 2017 and as deputy chair since 2021, representing the descendants of the chief Pomare. Like Tipene, she too is approaching the nine-year term limit, but she said there is still time for her to help strengthen the governance and assist the continued development of Waitangi. "So that just means I need to not waste any time but to use the time wisely. It also means thinking about succession and thinking about what will happen at the end of that term and supporting the board through its processes to prepare for that. "So the time may be short but I think we can achieve a lot during that time." The Waitangi National Trust is the guardian of the Waitangi Treaty Grounds and facilitates the annual Waitangi Day celebrations. Simpson (Ngāpuhi, Ngāi Tahu, Tainui) currently serves on the boards of Auckland International Airport, Meridian Energy and Waste Management New Zealand. Her previous roles include board positions with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, AgResearch and Tainui Group Holdings. Simpson said she is looking forward to taking on what may come in the new role, saying there is important work to do. "[I'm] pleased that we have a woman chair so that it demonstrates to other women and to younger women that these positions are open to them to pursue." Simpson said she prefers a collaborative style of leadership, something she plans to extend to the government despite heightened tensions during the last two Waitangi commemorations. "While there may be heightened discussions around aspects of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and how that is given effect to in our current world in particular in government processes, Waitangi itself continues to be the place for that kind of dialogue to occur and the place for all New Zealanders and in particular the parties to the treaty to come together and talk." The trust has enjoyed a good working relationship with government over the years, with the government continuing to support Waitangi through projects and development funding, she said. The trust is much more focused on maintaining Waitangi as a special, tapu place where the treaty was signed and were the spirit of partnership was agreed, she said. "We look after that place and space and the wairua of that place in order that the parties can come together and experience it and reflect and talk about what it means to us today." Simpson said ultimately the dialogue between Māori and government is a good thing and Waitangi is an appropriate place for it to happen. "It is an interesting time, an interesting juncture in the development of our nationhood in that we are having conversations nationally around the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, around what the treaty promised, about what it means and how we will reflect that within our national systems and structures." Orginisations like the Waitangi National Trust and the Waitangi Tribunal which are close to the treaty and its history have a role to play in working through those discussions and getting to a good conclusion, she said. Lisa Tumahai, the former chair of Ngāi Tahu and representative on the board of the people, Pākeha and Māori, living in the South Island, will step into the roll of deputy chair. The chief executive of Waitangi Ltd Ben Dalton said Simpson's appointment is not only a landmark for the trust but a testament to her unwavering dedication to the kaupapa of the treaty. "Her leadership will help deepen the understanding and relevance of Waitangi for generations to come," he said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store