Labor abstains from nuclear weapons treaty
1 November 2022
The big news this week on the nuclear front was not the announcement of a reactor to save Australia from the brewing energy crisis, it was the headline that Labor’s Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong has ‘abstained’ from voting on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the UN in New York.
This is apparently a ‘huge change’ from voting ‘no’.
Not really. It’s merely Labor doing what it always does – treading water on important issues, remaining unwilling to take a moral stand in either direction in case they hurt someone’s feelings. If Labor doesn’t believe in nuclear weapons, ratify the treaty, if they understand that nuclear weapons in the hands of only the worst dictatorships is a bad idea, say ‘no’ like the Liberals and explain the reality to the rabid voters panting at the sidelines.
The treaty is, like most things put forward by the UN, a complete waste of everyone’s time.
There’s a reason America and Australia have given a firm ‘no’ for the last five years. When it comes to preventing the use of nuclear weapons – the nations that you really don’t want packing nukes won’t sign any treaties and even if they did sign one, they wouldn’t give up their weapons.
If only Western nations sign the treaty, such as America, and then disarmed themselves – the world ends up without the ‘MAD’ failsafe. Mutually Assured Destruction has been the great peacekeeper of the modern age. One of the reasons that Russia limits itself to destroying small neighbouring states and China hasn’t invaded Australia is because America has promised to obliterate their capital cities with a few large explosions. Without the threat of MAD, underpinned by nuclear weapons, the dictatorships of the world would see the West as a buffet.
Feel-good, hug-it-out Greens-style voters and politicians don’t like to admit it, but peace is bought by power and the nuclear deterrent is what keeps the environment safe from perpetual global war.
Reducing the conversation to ‘nukes are bad and we must ban them’ is woefully childish.
The existence of nuclear weapons has made it easier for the UN to ban truly cruel weapons of war, such as chemical and biological weapons, because regimes do not feel they need them so long as MAD stands. It is a near certainty that without nuclear weapons in the game, bioweapons will become the implement of choice. While they don’t come with a dramatic ‘bang’, these weapons have the potential to eradicate entire species and scar the world with plagues and diseases for generations. They are also much harder for international organisations to monitor than nuclear weapons.
None of the world’s major states in possession of nuclear weapons have signed the treaty – which means that the treaty is essentially a document of nations that don’t have nukes complaining that life isn’t fair.
Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, India – they are never going to give up their nuclear weapons, and while that remains the case, America and the UK cannot get rid of theirs.
The events in Ukraine have made it less likely that anyone will ratify the treaty, given that Ukraine was invaded by Russia after it opted to ‘do the right thing’ and disarm in 1994, signing the Budapest Memorandum with Russia (among others). This piece of paper was meant to protect their sovereignty but treaties never do. Only the threat of genuine annihilation defends sovereignty. It is extraordinary that our political leaders never learn this lesson despite plenty of historical examples.
As to whether or not nuclear weapons are actually used, that is a different question entirely. They fell on Japan at the end of two world wars in a last-ditch desperate effort to stop one of the most horrific conflicts in human history at the hands of an exceptionally cruel regime. The consequences were terrible, but there is a valid argument that by immediately ending the war, it was ultimately the right thing to do and it has forever cemented hesitation in the hands of dictators thinking about invading their neighbours.
Plenty of commentators thought that Putin’s idle threats about using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would come true, even though that was unlikely from the start. Putin wants Ukraine for its natural resources, its food-growing regions, and its strategic ports – the holding of which were crucial in the last world war. Dropping nuclear weapons on Ukraine would immediately devalue the asset that Putin has spent a fortune in blood and gold trying to take while introducing the very real risk that America would make good on its threat to level Moscow. This is probably why Putin finally said, ‘We see no need for that – there is no point in that, neither political nor military.’
Penny Wong’s decision to abstain from the vote paints Labor as both idiots and weaklings, jeopardising faith in Australia’s long-standing position as a defender of nations. If Penny Wong does not understand how peace is held, then she cannot be trusted to make sensible military decisions – something that is likely to wash up on her doorstep as China encroaches on Taiwan.
It is impossible – completely impossible – to defend Australia with conventional weapons against China. If anything, Penny Wong should be considering whether or not there should be a nuclear deterrent to keep China away from our nation, preferably before hostilities kick-off.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Australia) released a statement thanking Penny Wong.
‘Australia has formally ended five years of opposition to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. While a decision to support and become a state party to the treaty is still pending, we welcome this development.’
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese remains a fan of ratifying it, proving that he is just as idiotic, reckless, and stupid as Penny Wong when it comes to international security.
Mind you, we had ample proof of this last week when Labor flew a mob of female ISIS terrorists into Sydney, plonking murderous religious zealots in amongst Australians who have enough to worry about without re-introducing the threat of terror attacks. That should disabuse you of any notion that the Labor Party cares about the safety of Australians.
It’s one thing for Albanese to give grand speeches about banning nuclear weapons, but if he only manages to take them out of the hands of Western nations, he is essentially giving the world’s dictatorships permission to use their weapons on Australia.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
Comment by Nelle Albo and Wong blunder on from one mistake to the next having no idea of what they are doing but are under the impression they know it all and push us further down the track to oblivion- Yay how did we get so lucky to have so many idiots in power