Editorial: Anti-nuclear views need to soften

Departing United States ambassador Charles Swindells identified a suitable case for treatment in his Fourth of July speech in Wellington, only to neglect to bring the requisite tools to the surgery table. It was all well and good of him to suggest the White House wanted a "comprehensive dialogue" with New Zealand to repair the rift created by the anti-nuclear legislation of the mid-1980s. But, given the entrenched positions of both sides, he needed also to deliver salve and substance. Devoid of that, his words bordered on trite.

It is inarguable that New Zealand's ban on nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships remains a serious impediment in Washington, and that the lack of a full relationship with the US has damaged our interests. And that now, as ever, the legislation embodies hypocrisy. In the event of a threat to this country's security, it would be repealed swiftly. Nonetheless, there remains a public indifference to that reality, and a widespread belief that the ban is a badge of independence.

Given that, there was little point in Mr Swindells waving an admonishing finger. There was no prospective reward in telling New Zealanders they risked increasing irrelevance, and ending up "in a place not to your liking" if they were not willing to open a new dialogue with the US. Just as two years previously, there had been no resonance to his statement that the nuclear issue was colouring important policy decisions, and playing "an unhelpful role in how we respond to one another".

What Washington must bring to the table is something that will cause New Zealanders to ponder their intransigence. Something that will make them believe that abandoning the anti-nuclear legislation will not, for example, lead to them being perceived by the US in the same light as Australia. The foreign policy priorities of the Anzac nations do not always coincide, and New Zealanders clearly harbour a stronger sense of independence. So much so that the National Party continues, unfortunately, to lack the courage to adopt a strong position.

New Zealanders also need to be convinced that the removal of the ban would be sufficient for the White House. That it would not lead to an array of further demands before this country was deemed worthy of allied status. The sort of demands that would involve New Zealand mirroring American policy in virtually every respect.

Washington could begin, as the Prime Minister suggests, by following the lead of fellow nuclear powers Britain and France. They have been sending non-nuclear-powered ships to New Zealand ports for many years. In effect, they have recognised the right of this country to make its own decision on the nuclear issue, and a way of accommodating both that and their own military requirements.

The US has had a standing invitation since 1985 to send warships that comply with New Zealand legislation. It has chosen not to do so. Understandably, adopting a similar line to that of Britain and France will not come easily to the world's reigning superpower. Its toughest task is, in some ways, according respect to the interests of countries that lack its might.

In his Fourth of July speech, Mr Swindells may have gone a short way down that path in making a case for a new level of relationship, even if the nuclear issues were not resolved by full and open talks. Those discussions may yet lead to a new understanding. One in which Washington budges sufficiently to help New Zealanders recognise a misplaced and redundant source of pride.