Letters to the Editor: nuclear, solar and war
On August 6 great publicity was given to the marking of the 80th anniversary of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, killing 200,000 men, women and children and causing immense suffering from radiation.
However, not many New Zealanders know radiation fell on our New Zealand Navy sailors during Operation Grapple on the frigates HMNZS Pukaki and HMNZS Rotoiti in 1957 and 1958 when the British Government tested hydrogen nuclear bombs over Christmas Island and Malden Island in the mid-Pacific.
The biggest of the detonations was equal to 140 Hiroshima bombs.
The servicemen on these two frigates were ordered to stay on deck to observe nine explosions over many months during this period. Medical investigations here have now proved severe damage to the sailors' health.
So, we in New Zealand have had a tragedy that has not been acknowledged by any formal apology from the New Zealand or British Government.
Medical evidence has proved that this radiation has caused tragic results for most of these New Zealand servicemen and some of their children and grandchildren.
Also, one nuclear explosion in a port or on land in New Zealand would contaminate our food-producing industries.
We should all strive to stop the use of nuclear weapons on Planet Earth. Lady Fiona McHardy Elworthy Spare a thought
An element of humility might serve Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis better than flippant comments and brush-offs when asked about unemployment. We know you're "sorted" but the rest of us might not be. Solar farm impact
Large solar farms in the United Kingdom do have an impact on the environment, so let's introduce solar power well in New Zealand.
I agree with Dr Duncan Connors ( ODT , 3.7.25) their place is best on top of large shopping centres, car parks and new builds, but not over the land.
We needed an upgraded waste collection, but look how the highly coloured plastic bins now line our streets and distract from the character and colour of properties.
It would never happen in Bath.
Visual planning is important.
Especially in a heritage city like Dunedin.
Metiria Turei's opinion piece ( ODT , 8.8.25) suggests late voting enrolments should be allowed.
However after the unnecessary delay in forming the new government, due in part to late enrolments, it seems counterproductive to democracy.
In life there are always deadlines. If a person can't take their voting seriously enough to be enrolled in time, then it's a life lesson learned to their advantage.
On allowing prisoners to vote, it should be taught in schools that to offend in society means losing societies privileges, one of which is voting.
This might disadvantage the Greens, who propose to defund police and abolish prisons, but that's my opinion. Failing to face the truth will get us nowhere
Now the world is finally coming to see Benjamin Netanyahu for the criminal he is, it is time to move on to the next phase in the Israel/Palestine tragedy. That is not recognition of a Palestine state which, even if it ever got off the ground would be nothing more than a failure to face the truth.
The Arabs hate the Israels almost as much as the Israelis hate the Arabs, which is almost as much as white South Africans hated black South Africans and vice-versa. However, the people holding all the power tend to have an extra bite to their hatred, a sort of paranoia. Ask any colonist.
Who thought white and black South Africans would one day live together in a democracy? But that, as difficult as it was to swallow and as difficult as it will continue to be for many years to come, was preferable to annihilation.
No-one should be surprised that people who have been oppressed for generations find it difficult to immediately respect democracy. After all, the other lot didn't.
Tough as it is, democracy is the only civilised way out of this horrible mess. Talk of recognising a Palestinian State is either foolishness or deliberate deceit. Nothing short of one adult one vote and sharing the land will (eventually) solve the problem.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Tempers fray over coalition's slow pace on Palestine
Analysis: Shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon laid out one of his guiding foreign policy principles. 'I want us to be in lockstep with our partners who have common interests and actually be right there with them at that time,' he said in December 2023, after his fledgling coalition Government signed onto joint statements about Russian cyber attacks and Israel's war in Gaza.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Decoding non-answers on Palestine
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in the House. File photo. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Analysis - Parliament held an urgent debate on Tuesday on whether to recognise Palestine as a state. Many of the speeches were fiery and the Hansard record is worth reading. Strong party positions were outlined by Simon Court (ACT), Vanushi Walters and others (Labour), Chlöe Swarbrick (Green) and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori). New Zealand First's only speaker, Winston Peters, spoke aggressively, though more as minister of foreign affairs than party leader. The only party that made no speeches at all was National. This was unusual for an urgent debate. The eight calls in an urgent debate are not proportionally allocated, but National MPs usually speak regardless of whether it is a National minister who initially responds. If nothing else, this uses up available Opposition speech time. It may be that the National Party has not managed an internal consensus on Palestine and was not prepared to reveal internal division or put forward a message some members wouldn't support. Other parties did not worry about laying out their opinions. ACT's speaker was the most fervently against statehood. Labour, Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs all made strong speeches. So, what does the National Party, or indeed the prime minister think about Palestine and Gaza? That is still uncertain, though an attempt to tease it out was made in Question Time, when Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick asked Christopher Luxon a series of questions on Gaza. Both answers and non-answers can both be instructive. Below are the questions and answers from that interchange and a later one, with brief commentary. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that "There are a broad range of strongly held views within our government", and, if so, who in the government is opposing recognising Palestinian Statehood? Christopher Luxon: There are a broad range and strongly held views across the whole of our society and across the whole of New Zealand and, as you would expect, across this Chamber there will be a variance of views as well. Note: You will notice that the prime minister didn't answer that question. That is not newsworthy - Luxon usually avoids directly answering Opposition questions in the House. He usually segues to prepared talking points, using phrases like "what I can say is", or "I'll just say to the member". The questions he receives are often very political (and have few good answers), so his avoidance is understandable. Some of Swarbrick's queries were more straightforward though, offering openings for statesmanlike or informed answers - like the next one. Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the harm, if any, of recognising Palestinian statehood? Christopher Luxon: Well, it's been a longstanding position of successive New Zealand Governments since 1947 to recognise the creation of a State for Israel and a State of Palestine where two peoples can live together in peace and security. That has been a longstanding position of the New Zealand Governments of different political parties. The issue is that we need to, as we've said, as you've heard the foreign Minister say, and it's been a longstanding position-it's a matter of when, not if. But the immediate challenge for the situation in the Middle East is, of course, Hamas must release hostages. As a terrorist organisation, they must release those hostages. Secondly, Israel must allow unfettered humanitarian access into what is an absolute catastrophe, and there must be a ceasefire and diplomacy and dialogue. Note: The next question was politically couched, but still afforded options for a good answer. Chlöe Swarbrick. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister aware that Israeli hostages have been offered back multiple times and Israel currently holds approximately 10,000 Palestinian prisoners? Christopher Luxon: Sorry, I'm not going to respond to that question. That's not what I've been briefed on. Notes: Swarbrick appealed to the Speaker about that non-answer to a question she argued was seeking "to tease out the logic that [Luxon was] using with regard to government decision-making". Speaker Gerry Brownlee ruled in Luxon's favour, saying: "The prime minister said he wasn't prepared to answer it because it wasn't within the scope of the briefing that he's received." Parliament's rules do allow a few reasons why ministers might refuse to answer, including not giving a legal opinion, or an answer not being in the public interest. Not being briefed is not in the list, although some ministers do sometimes admit a lack of knowledge and offer to come back with a response. The next question felt like it was straight from a morning newspaper's five-minute quiz. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister aware, then, of our obligations under the genocide convention, and, if so, what are they? Christopher Luxon: Yes, and what I'd say to the member is I would be very careful throwing terms like "genocide" around. It's very important that the right bodies that we support under the international rules-based system - the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court - are those closest and are the appropriate bodies which we fully support to make those determinations. Notes: For extra quiz points - signatories to the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (including New Zealand) - undertake to prevent as well as punish genocide. It's there in the name. Strictly speaking that answer could have stopped at "yes", because ministers are only required to address any one leg of a two-legged question. However, saying yes, and then pivoting away does make one wonder whether the prime minister was worried about getting the second leg wrong. Admitting to an obligation to prevent genocide might have made for a difficult follow-up question. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister finally willing to say that Israel's slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza is a genocide, and, if not, what does he know that Holocaust and genocide scholars don't? Note: Like many questions in Question Time this one actually falls outside the very strict parameters for questions (which do not allow the inclusion of supposition or argument). On this occasion ACT leader David Seymour intervened with an objection to the Speaker. Swarbrick reworded the question. Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the prime minister know that Holocaust and genocide scholars apparently do not when they call what is currently occurring in Gaza a "genocide"? Christopher Luxon: Well, what I know is that there's a humanitarian catastrophe happening in the Middle East. What I know is that we want to see peace and stability and security reign in the Middle East, and, for that to happen, Hamas must release hostages immediately. What happened on 7 October from a terrorist organisation inflicting 1200 deaths on innocent civilians was unacceptable. We are also saying, clearly - and we've done it through a number of calls with other countries as well - that we want Israel to give unfettered humanitarian access. We do not want more military action. We need to make sure that we actually see diplomacy and dialogue reign in the Middle East. Note: Anyone managing to tease out a solid party or government position on Palestinian statehood from that interchange would need to be a talented haruspex. It is worth noting that during Question Time the prime minister does not speak as a party leader, but as leader of the Executive. Previous prime ministers have at times made observations as individuals or have outlined the varying perspectives that coalition partners bring to an issue. On this issue I expect there is significant diversion of thought, both within and between the coalition member parties. Possibly it is creditable that the prime minister is not seeking to impose a perspective on his own MPs as leader. Later in Question Time Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer also focused on Palestine. Most of her questions were not well phrased and were disallowed, but the first two added a little to the picture. Speaker Gerry Brownlee. Photo: RNZ Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the prime minister allowing the government to delay recognition of the State of Palestine until September? Christopher Luxon: Well, it's a government that wants to weigh up its position over the next month. We acknowledge that some of our close partners have changed their position; others have not. We will work our way through the process, as we outlined on Tuesday. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What criteria does the prime minister believe Palestinians have not met that is preventing his government from immediately recognising their humanity and statehood on Wednesday? Christopher Luxon: Well, as I explained earlier, it's been a longstanding, bipartisan position that New Zealand supports a two-state solution. It goes right back to 1947 and the partition. We want to see a State of Israel and a State of Palestine living peacefully, side by side. But we are going to review and weigh up our position, as we articulated, and it's an important issue, it's a complex issue, and we'll work through it sensibly and seriously. Note: Luxon avoided answering several out-of-order questions that followed on the Israeli Defence Force having killed Al Jazeera journalists, whether the IDF's actions undermined Israel's own statehood, and what would be left to protect once the government makes a decision about statehood. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Recognition of Palestine - NZ weighs decision amid global pressure
Neither argument is strictly relevant to New Zealand's decision, which will be made by UN leaders' week in six weeks. The purpose of recognising Palestinian statehood is not to please Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or to infuriate Israel, although it will do all of those things. It is not to instantly magic up a happy ending to the misery in Gaza. It is to preserve the viability of a two-state solution, a state of Israel co-existing with a state of Palestine in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Every country that has joined the latest international effort to recognise Palestinian statehood has cited that as the rationale. And the reason for that is that Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu is redoubling efforts to undermine and reject a two-state solution, including plans to take control of Gaza City, and a symbolic vote in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) last month calling for Israel to annex the West Bank. 'The Netanyahu government's rejection of a two-state solution is wrong – it's wrong morally and it's wrong strategically,' said British Foreign Secretary David Lammy. 'The two-state solution is in mortal danger. It is about to give way to perpetual confrontation. That is something France simply cannot resign itself to,' said France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noel Barrot. 'Prospects for a two-state solution have been steadily and gravely eroded,' said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. 'The Netanyahu Government is extinguishing the prospect of a two-state solution by rapidly expanding illegal settlements, threatening annexation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and explicitly opposing any Palestinian state,' said Albanese. As in New Zealand, the two-state solution has long been endorsed by most countries, and the United Nations, as the only fair long-term answer to two peoples with claims to the same land. Palestinians wait to receive hot meals with their pots and pans in Deir Al Balah, Gaza. Photo / Anadolu via Getty Images The alternative, one state of Israel, is one in which the Palestinian quest for a homeland would never be satisfied, one in which Palestinian rights would be subjugated and one in which conflict would be permanent. At times, Israel has supported a two-state solution. But Netanyahu, now in this third stint as Prime Minister, has actively undermined it by supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in breach of international law. When New Zealand was preparing to co-sponsor UN Security Council resolution 2334 in 2016 – again in order to preserve a two-state solution - he described it as 'a declaration of war'. Netanyahu had already bullied Egypt out of co-sponsoring the resolution, but it passed, and Israel withdrew its ambassador from Wellington for five months. The United States, whose Secretary of State John Kerry had done a huge amount of work in the Middle East, abstained, allowing it to pass without dissent. The present has some echoes to back then. Today's rallying of the international community, once again to preserve the two-state solution, also serves to reinforce the position that this protracted conflict needs a political solution, not a military one. Since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the ensuing crisis, New Zealand's position has remained non-committal about when it will recognise Palestine and to 'focus on the needs of the moment'. It is the classic bob-each-way position of a small state, trying to keep onside with Israel by not recognising Palestine, and keeping Palestinians onside by saying it's just a matter of when, not if. But given that Israel has thumbed its nose at the international community and its disproportionate, horrific actions in Gaza, the question New Zealand must ask is whether it is still valid to try to please everyone. With movement on the issue from a large number of like-minded friends, Australia, Britain, France, and Canada give a small country the cover it might not normally have over such a major shift. No shift is likely without conditions. They could be similar to those accepted by France and Canada, such as commitments by the Palestinian Authority to reform its governance, commit to elections in 2026, exclude any role for Hamas, and demilitarise any Palestinian state. If a condition by New Zealand were to wait for recognition until an actual state was in place, that would be tantamount to the status quo. Foreign Minister Winston Peters took an oral item to cabinet on Monday about recognition of a Palestinian state, as opposed to a cabinet paper. That is not to say that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade won't have plenty of advice on recognition, and that is being prepared. But it is also a reminder that no matter what the official advice is, it will be a political decision. Peters himself, a former student of Hebrew, has been a hawk on Israel. He was critical of New Zealand sponsoring resolution 2334 in 2016. That meant his strong criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza last year and this year has carried more weight. Planes drop aid packages by parachute over western Gaza City, Gaza. Photo / Anadolu via Getty Images It is acknowledged by most countries that the United States and President Trump, Israel's strongest ally, hold the key to ending the conflict and what happens afterwards. And because Peters is sympathetic to the Trump Administration and its America First ethos, he is open to accusations of delaying recognition in order to please the United States. That is why Peters, despite professing to loathe the common refrain that New Zealand has an independent foreign policy on the basis that it implies that others don't, on Monday insisted that 'New Zealand has an independent foreign policy'. An important factor in how New Zealand is approaching the issue of recognition is the unique makeup of the Government. It is the prerogative of the cabinet to make such a decision. However, given that the cabinet avoids votes (National with 14 out of 20 would win every time) and operates on party consensus, it effectively gives a veto to each of the three parties in Government, National, Act and NZ First. That could lead to an outrageous outcome if, for example, every party in Parliament except Act favoured recognition of Palestinian statehood or if every party except Act and NZ First supported recognition. The parties other than Act, led by Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, and NZ First, led by Peters, represent 85% of the Parliament. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the recognition of Palestine is a complex issue and will take time to work through. Actually, it is not that hard. What will be hard is presenting the views of a disparate Government to a country that has largely lost sympathy with Israel because of its appalling treatment of Palestinians. One of the reasons Peters might find it difficult to support recognition of Palestinian statehood is that he has spent the past year saying why New Zealand shouldn't. But when the circumstances change, as they have done, it is not unreasonable for the response to change.
