New Zealand's Stance on the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty

This report examines New Zealand's support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, emphasizing its commitment to a nuclear-free world and its historical role in advocating for disarmament. The submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee details the treaty's prohibitions on nuclear activities and highlights the ethical imperatives of disarmament. It analyzes the content of the treaty, arguing for its proper safeguarding to ensure global developments are not hampered while also mandating assistance to those affected by nuclear weapons use or testing. The report discusses debates surrounding the treaty, the concerns over the continued manufacture and use of nuclear weapons, and the catastrophic humanitarian implications of nuclear weapons. It argues why New Zealand should support the treaty, given its history of promoting a nuclear-free zone and facing opposition from major nuclear powers. It references New Zealand's past legislative actions, such as the Arms Control, Nuclear Free Zone and Disarmament Act of 1987, and its commitment to ratifying the treaty despite potential strained relationships with allies. The report concludes that New Zealand's historical commitment to disarmament makes it a key player in the international effort to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Running head: SOCIAL POLICY 1
Submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee
on International Treaty Examination of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Name
Course
Instructor
Institution
Date

SOCIAL POLICY 2
International Treaty examination of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Basis for the submission
This submission discusses the International Treaty Examination of the Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. New Zealand has been on the forefront in supporting the treaty
that prohibits nuclear activities thereby demonstrating to the entire world that it supports a
nuclear weapon free world and therefore advocates for a peaceful world fit for all to live in. The
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entails clear outlines of prohibitions which outlaw
participation of all nations of the world in any activities related to nuclear weapons (Nanda,
2008). The treaty acknowledges the ethical imperatives of disarmament of nuclear weapons as
well as the urgent need for the world to ensure the achievement of a nuclear weapon free
universe as the best way of reducing the destructive humanitarian consequences caused due to
the use of nuclear weapons.
Conversely, the treaty recognizes the immense suffering of survivors of atomic bomb and
nuclear tests as well as the disproportionate effects of nuclear weapons as well as other activities
related to the use of nuclear weapons and the impacts on indigenous members of the community
such as women, children and people from minority groups. The nuclear weapon engagements
banned by the treaty include any activity related to the development, testing, production,
acquisition, possession, stockpiling, use of or threats of using the nuclear weapons (Rappert &
Moyes, 2009).
Similarly, this treaty bans all nations from deploying nuclear weapons on their own
territory as well as on other nations’ territories. Moreover, the treaty prohibits any nation from
providing assistance to a State which engages in the prohibited nuclear activities. Furthermore,
the treaty vests the power of prevention and suppression of the prohibited nuclear activities in the

SOCIAL POLICY 3
State parties to the treaty. The State parties have an obligation of preventing and suppressing any
form of activity prohibited to a State Party in line with this treaty undertaken by any State under
its control.
Analysis of the content of the Bill
In order for it to be implemented in a manner that ensures that global economic and
technological developments are not hampered, there is a requirement for this treaty to be
properly safeguarded (Templeton, 2006). Conversely, the Treaty on the prohibition of Nuclear
weapons mandates State Parties with obligation of providing assistance to persons or States
which suffer as a result of the use or testing of the Nuclear weapons. The protection does not
only cover human life but also extents to remedying the environment in areas affected by nuclear
activities. The treaty represents a critical contribution and step towards a common global resolve
to ensure that the world is a peaceful place for human habitation without fear due to the
elimination of the very dangerous nuclear weapons (Anastassov, 2009).
Debates on this treaty indicate a clear reflection of the growing concerns over the threat
of continually manufacturing and using nuclear weapons. Similarly, the concerns indicate the
increasing global awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian implications of which will arise if
nations are allowed to continue with the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons. This treaty
which was passed on July 7, 2017 requires the signature of at least 50 nations to pass it and make
it. Supporting this treaty whose main goal is to ensure a complete elimination of nuclear weapons
from the surface of the earth is an indication of a deep concern for humanity.
New Zealand is recognized world over as being the first nation to begin the debate on the
prohibition of nuclear weapons. Therefore, as the mother of the treaty, it is in order for the
national parliament of New Zealand to take the leading role in discussing the various debates

SOCIAL POLICY 4
which have risen as a result of the prohibition of nuclear activities by the treaty (Richardson,
2011). By discussing this treaty, the country follows in its beautiful history of taking the lead in
enlightening the world on the need for ensuring a peaceful society by eliminating the production
of dangerous weapons such as the nuclear weapons which pose a serious threat to the existence
of humanity.
Argument on why New Zealand should support the Treaty
The discussion of the treaty under the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee,
plays a significant role in the promotion of a global campaign focusing on the unacceptability of
using nuclear weapons and gives hope to the hopeless that the treaty will be adopted thereby
renewing momentum on the disarmament of nuclear weapons. Today world over, there is fear
over the likelihood of the emergent of the Third World War (Wittner, 2009). Nations, especially
from the Middle East seem to be preparing to cause harm.
Looking at situations in nations such as Syria and North Korea, it sends a clear signal that
human life could be under serious threat. Going by the catastrophic consequences emerging from
the use of nuclear weapons in the Second War; the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945 atomic
bombings, there is all reasons to fear use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the devastating effects
of nuclear weapons on the environment is also another reason as to why everybody should be
scared with the mere mention of the word nuclear weapon (Conte, 2010). A few nations have
signed the treaty signaling their support on the ban of nuclear weapons and among the first
nations to sign the treaty was New Zealand in September 2017. This was a good move which
signals how selfless the country is and how New Zealand values respect for humanity.
Unfortunately, despite it being very clear that nuclear weapons possess a serious threat to
global peace as well as to the existence of the entire human race, many nations, the world

SOCIAL POLICY 5
superpowers included have been reluctant to sign the treaty (Reitzig, 2006). Having shown her
commitment towards ensuring that nuclear weapons are eliminated from the face of the earth by
adopting the Arms control, Nuclear Free Zone and Disarmament Act in 1987 which is regarded
as the beginning of the recent debates on the prohibition of nuclear weapons as well as having
been among the first nations to sign the 2017 treaty prohibiting the production and use of nuclear
weapons, it is in the world’s best interest that the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee
adopts the treaty.
New Zealand has a long history of fighting for the safety of the universe. Being the first
ally of the United States to adopt legislation that barred nuclear activities within its waters and
territory in 1987, New Zealand is known to be a country that has been on the forefront in the
fight for disarmament (Catalinac, 2010). The recent debate on the prohibition of nuclear weapon
is thought to have its roots in this legislation of 1987 by New Zealand. Therefore, steps taken
towards ensuring that there are no nuclear weapon activities are in line with New Zealand long
history of fighting for disarmament. China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and United
States; the world’s big five nations known for the manufacture of nuclear weapons are opposed
to the move to ban nuclear activities.
The opposition to the treaty is founded on the argument that nuclear deterrence is
unsustainable and inherently unstable. Similarly, they argue that by prohibiting nuclear weapon
activities, it raises the risk of the manufacture and use of the weapons without control
(Magnerella, 2008). According to the big five, nuclear weapon ban will give room for the
proliferation as well as use of nuclear weapons by miscalculation, intent or by accident. The
effect of using nuclear weapons by accident or intentionally according to the big five could be
catastrophic. Therefore, according to the big five, nuclear activities should be allowed and that

SOCIAL POLICY 6
instead of completely prohibiting the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons, control measures
should be put in place to ensure responsible production and use of the nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, New Zealand has for long been known for her fight towards ensuring
a Nuclear Free Zone, arms control as well as disarmament (Graham & LaVera, 2011). For
instance, in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986, on June 8, 1987, the national
parliament adopted the Arms control, Nuclear Free Zone and Disarmament Act which served as
a clear demonstration of New Zealand’s resolve to prohibit nuclear activities both by its citizens
as well as any of her agents across the world. The adoption of this legislation came with
consequences such as the deterioration of the friendship ties with her longtime allies such as
United States, United Kingdom, Australia, France and Canada.
Despite the loss of friends, the then Prime Minister, David Lange, pointed out that New
Zealand would not trade anything for nuclear weapon ban (Lavallette & Pratt, 2006). He
maintained that although the nation stood to lose its longtime close allies, it would use all its
powers economically, culturally and militarily to ensure that there were no nuclear activities in
the world. Despite internal opposition to the legislation from a large position of the public sector
citing the likelihood of the nation being undefended amid the Cold War environment, her resolve
in defending the prohibition of nuclear weapons was strong. As a result, the legislation managed
to survive both internal and external pressure thereby making New Zealand to gain a global
recognition of a peaceful as well as “clean-green” nation due to her peace and disarmament
initiatives globally.
Going by such legislations, New Zealand has had a long history of championing for
global disarmament using the force of morality as well as the law (Hudson & Lowe, 2009). The
nation is therefore used to facing opposition from the military and politically might of the big

SOCIAL POLICY 7
five nuclear powers of China, Russia, United States, United Kingdom and France. It is therefore
highly likely that the nation will face stiff opposition in its support of the prohibition of nuclear
weapons from the big five nuclear nations. Nevertheless, just like the past parliamentarians have
done in the past, it is high time the New Zealand parliament continued with the nation’s long
history of fighting against the production and use of nuclear weapons.
Previous Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committees have put the nation on the
global map by adopting the Arms control, Nuclear Free Zone and Disarmament Act of June 8,
1987. It is courtesy of this Act that other nations embraced the fight against the production and
use nuclear weapons. Therefore, this makes the entire debate on International Treaty
Examination of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons a New Zealand affair
(Hogwood & Gun, 1984). The debate was initiated by New Zealand through the 1987 Arms
control, Nuclear Free Zone and Disarmament Act.
Just like in the 1987 case whereby the big five nuclear weapon producers were opposed
to the Act prohibiting the production and use of nuclear weapons, the current debate on the
prohibition of nuclear weapons is faced with opposition from the politically and militarily
stronger nations. According to the statement of Winston Peters, the Disarmament Minister, New
Zealand in its continuation of the support on the disarmament initiatives and ensuring that there
is no production and use of nuclear weapons, the country will ratify the treaty as an expression of
its abiding commitment to ensuring a nuclear free world. His move just like in the past may lead
to the loss of ties with her strong allies such as the United States (Ham & Hill, 1993).
Nonetheless, New Zealand has been in this position before where she had to endure a
strained relationship with her close allies such as the United States, Canada and Australia. The
consequences of producing and using nuclear weapons make it worth taking the risk of ratifying

SOCIAL POLICY 8
the treaty and losing allies. No consequence compares to that caused by nuclear weapons to
humanity to human life. Its use can cause death due to the vast amounts of explosive energy that
is released which leads to radiation and excessively high temperatures. The practical example of
the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons is the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attack
which led to the loss of thousands of lives in a matter of seconds. Moreover, nuclear activities
causes emission of greenhouse gasses which contributes to global warming.
Nevertheless, in the past attempts to control nuclear activities, caution has been taken not
to hamper global technological and economic developments coming as a result of the use of
nuclear energy. Nations believed that as much as nuclear activities can have catastrophic
consequences, the use of nuclear energy can have positive consequences to the economy and
technology (Wallis & Dolley, 1999). In order to ensure that nations do not use the protection of
the positive use nuclear energy to proliferate and use nuclear weapons, control and restrictive
measures have been put in place. For instance, nations used the Convention on Physical
Protection of Nuclear Material of 1980 in an attempt to make it difficult for any nation to use
nuclear weapons for other purposes rather than peaceful purposes.
According to this Convention, State Parties are obliged to ensure that in the course of
transporting nuclear materials to be used for positive purposes, the transporters categorize the
materials and place them in special annex with an agreed level of protection. However, this
consideration has been abused. For instance, North Korea have has been reluctant to abandon its
manufactures and testing of nuclear weapons which is a breach of the treaty prohibiting the use
of nuclear weapons.
In an attempt to demonstrate its ability in launching ballistic missiles, North Korea has in
the recent past been engaged in a series of nuclear and missile tests beyond her borders (McGee,

SOCIAL POLICY 9
2005). Such exercises together with statements made by the Kim Jong-un administration
pointing out that the development of North Korea’s nuclear capability was at a faster rate than
had been reported after the United States assessments has led to the current tension between the
two nations. Due to both the United States and North Korea being producers of nuclear weapons,
war between these two nations which could provide chance for testing and showcasing the
nuclear weapon might, has the potential of not only affecting the two nations but rather spreading
over and affecting the entire world.
This is the biggest fear surrounding the debates on the production and use of nuclear
weapons. Therefore, in the ratification of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear activities, the
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee should propose the total elimination of nuclear
weapons whether for positive or negative purposes. This is the only way nations such as North
Korea which have used the protection of the treaty on the production and use of nuclear products
for peaceful purposes as a loophole to produce harmful nuclear weapons.
Committee Membership
O’Connor Simon – Chairperson
Macindoe Tim –Deputy Chairperson
Ghahraman Golriz –Member
Jackson Willie – Member
McClay Todd –Member
Penk Chris –Member
Wall Louisa –Member
Webb Duncan –Member

SOCIAL POLICY 10

SOCIAL POLICY 11
References
Anastassov, A. (2009). Are nuclear weapons illegal? The role of public international law and the
international court of justice. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 15(1), 65-87.
Catalinac, A. L. (2010). Why New Zealand took itself out of ANZUS: observing “opposition for
autonomy” in asymmetric alliances. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(4), 317-338.
Conte, A. (2010). Human rights in the prevention and punishment of terrorism: Commonwealth
approaches: The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Graham Jr, T., & LaVera, D. J. (2011). Cornerstones of Security: Arms Control Treaties in the
Nuclear Era. University of Washington Press.
Ham, C., & Hill, M. (1993).The policy Process in the Modern Capitalistic State (2nd ed.).
Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall/Harvetser Wheatsheaf. Hill, M. (2005). The public policy
process (4th ed.). London: Pearson Longman.
Hogwood, B., & Gunn, L. (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hudson, J., & Lowe, S. (2009).Understanding the policy process: Analysing welfare policy and
practice. The Polity Press.
Lavalette, M., & Pratt, A. (2006). Socialpolicy: Theories, concepts and issues (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Magnarella, P. J. (2008). Attempts to Reduce and Eliminate Nuclear Weapons through the
Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty and the Creation of Nuclear‐Weapon‐Free Zones.
Peace & Change, 33(4), 507-521.

SOCIAL POLICY 12
McGee, D. (2005). Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand (3rd ed.).Wellington: Government
Printer.
Nanda, V. P. (2008). Nuclear Weapons, Human Security, and International Law. Denv. J. Int'l L.
& Pol'y, 37, 331.
Rappert, B., & Moyes, R. (2009). The prohibition of cluster munitions: setting international
precedents for defining inhumanity. Nonproliferation Review, 16(2), 237-256.
Reitzig, A. (2006). In defiance of nuclear deterrence: anti-nuclear New Zealand after two
decades. Medicine, conflict and survival, 22(02), 132-144.
Richardson, B. J. (2011). Sovereign wealth funds and the quest for sustainability: insights from
Norway and New Zealand.
Templeton, M. (2006). Standing Upright Here: New Zealand in the Nuclear Age, 1945-1990.
Victoria University Press.
Wallis, J., & Dolley, B. (1999). Market Failure, Government Failure, Leadership and Public
Policy. London, Macmillan Press.
Wittner, L. S. (2009). Confronting the bomb: A short history of the world nuclear disarmament
movement. Stanford University Press.