KEY POINTS:
According to many scientists, the growing impact of climate change will soon make the oil-based energy order, underpinning the current global economy, unsustainable.
Some countries have reacted to this prospect by looking to nuclear power as a clean and cheap alternative source of energy. But given the link between civilian and military aspects of nuclear technology, this trend could also signal the proliferation of nuclear weapon-capable states.
Such a scenario could affect every nation, including New Zealand.
Despite its geography, New Zealand is a country with far-flung economic interests. It is dependent on overseas trade and relies on the continued flow of oil to maintain its transportation system.
Because New Zealand has some of the longest trade routes in the world, it remains vulnerable to global economic upheavals or political instability in critical regions, like the Middle East, which has the potential to impact on commercial sea-lanes.
At the same time, cultural and ethnic ties bind New Zealand to the South Pacific. It is a region that is particularly susceptible to problems associated with climate change.
Some New Zealanders claim that nuclear power would help end the country's addiction to foreign oil and redirect our energy requirements to sources closer to home.
It could be argued that by developing nuclear energy New Zealand would decrease its greenhouse gas emissions and the threat they pose to its neighbours in the Pacific Islands.
However, the option of nuclear energy in New Zealand should not be divorced from its sobering political-strategic context. There are approximately 443 nuclear power plants operating around the globe. Many long-range studies point to the likelihood of thousands being constructed over the next 50 years.
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty has been under assault in recent years. The three pillars upon which it rests: non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology, have all been challenged by both member-states party to the treaty and those which have abstained.
It is believed that five of the eight nuclear weapon states have recently exploited their civilian nuclear programmes for military purposes. Forty-eight other countries today are reported to have gained the technical knowledge relevant to the construction of nuclear weapons.
More worryingly, it is possible that failing states, especially those located in unstable or climate change susceptible regions of the world, could be tempted to develop existing civilian nuclear facilities into full-blown military programmes.
In this new international energy context, New Zealand's credentials as a committed and strong supporter of non-proliferation have obtained a new importance for global security. It is worth recalling that the Lange government of the mid-1980s embraced a non-nuclear security policy.
Over time, the rejection of nuclear weapons became linked in New Zealand with the rejection of nuclear energy. We believe it would now be wrong for New Zealand to backtrack on its non-nuclear stance. For one thing, New Zealand can call on its extensive renewable energy resources to address the problem of dwindling fossil fuels.
Make no mistake.
Whatever short-term benefits may be offered to New Zealand by the nuclear energy option, these are dwarfed by the terrible costs of becoming complicit in a global order that fuels the proliferation of nuclear weapons and ultimately undermines the security of New Zealand and all other members of the international community.
* Reuben Steff is conducting research for a PhD thesis on ballistic missile defence and Robert G. Patman is a Professor of International Relations in the Department of Politics, University of Otago.
