RUST NEVER SLEEPS is Neil Young’s protest against time and the damage it inflicts: on bodies, on ideals, on souls.
But, if you listen carefully to the album, it soon becomes clear that time isn’t the song’s only target. Young is also railing against the way the system itself never tires of wearing us down. With every small surrender, every reluctant compromise, what makes us unique and valuable gets eaten away. It isn’t sudden, or dramatic, but it is unceasing. Young is warning us that the system, too, never sleeps.
Vivid proof of the system’s relentless nature has just been released in the form of Gerald Hensley’s Friendly Fire: Nuclear Politics and the Collapse of ANZUS 1984-1987. Promoted as “an insider’s account”, the book is, in fact, just one more paving stone on the road to complete reconciliation with the United States.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, The NZ Defence Force, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and all the other people who “matter” in New Zealand’s “permanent government” have been laying that road ever since David Lange, Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark dragged them kicking and screaming into the uncharted territory of diplomatic independence in 1985.
Gerald Hensley was once at the very heart of New Zealand’s permanent government and seems to have taken Lange’s, Wilson’s and Clark’s radical manoeuvrings as a personal affront. Lange and the Labour Party played him for a fool over the aborted visit of the USS Buchanan and he has never quite gotten over it. His claim that Lange “lied” about the planned visit of the Buchanan shows how tender Hensley’s feelings still are. It also reveals his peculiarly naïve approach to politics and politicians.
Had Lange accepted an American warship into New Zealand waters without an explicit public assurance from the Americans that it was neither nuclear powered nor nuclear armed, he would have been breaking his solemn promise to the New Zealand electorate. In effect, turning it into a lie. But, Hensley would not have been in the least bit affronted by that sort of deception. Indeed, he would have regarded it as welcome proof of Lange’s political maturity.
In the minds of Hensley and his colleagues, the passing whims and fancies of the New Zealand electorate are a very poor substitute indeed for the professional advice and guidance of the nation’s foreign affairs and defence experts. It was their job to make sure that the democratic distemper of the masses did not destabilise the careful maintenance of New Zealand’s long-term military, diplomatic and trading interests. As the principle guarantor of those interests, the American alliance had to be preserved – at virtually any cost.
Implicit in Hensley’s attitude is a quaintly aristocratic view of politics. Important decisions cannot be left to ordinary people with no understanding of the issues in play. It is, therefore, the duty of politicians and their advisors to devise ways of convincing the voters that their will has been heeded – even when it has not.
On the vexed nuclear issue, Hensley’s openly avowed intention was always to find a formula which allowed New Zealanders to believe that their country was nuclear-free, without imposing upon the Americans the slightest obligation to actually ensure that it was nuclear-free. If he could “square the circle”, as he put it, then ANZUS would remain in force – and everybody that mattered would be happy.
This general disdain for democracy prevented Hensley from perceiving the potential damage such duplicity could have inflicted upon Lange’s ministry. Were the parliamentary party to renege on its commitment to introduce nuclear-free legislation, the Labour Party organisation had the power, and its President, Margaret Wilson, almost certainly had the will, to precipitate Lange’s government into a full-scale political crisis.
She could have done this by calling a Special Conference of the Labour Party. In early 1985 it was still a massive organisation of 85,000 branch members and upwards of 100,000 trade union affiliates. The party organisation extended from Northland to Southland, Greymouth to Napier, and, on the nuclear-free issue, it’s unity was rock solid.
Faced with a Special Conference, the Labour Caucus would have had to choose between three equally risky alternatives. They could attempt to overawe the membership with talk of loyalty and the need to show confidence in their government. They could hang tough and refuse to be dictated to by forces external to the House of Representatives. Or, they could announce their willingness to be guided by the party rank-and-file.
If it had been any other issue than the nuclear issue, the first alternative would probably have worked (as it did a year later over the introduction of GST). But so hot was the nuclear-free issue – not only in the Labour Party, but across the whole of progressive New Zealand, that not even Lange’s soaring oratory could have persuaded his party membership to accept the sort of fudge Hensley, MFAT and the military men were proposing.
Had the Cabinet opted for the second alternative they would have infuriated the rank-and-file. So much so that those in the party already alarmed at Roger Douglas’ economic policies would have moved to broaden the Special Conference’s remit to include the government’s deviation from the fundamental aims and objectives of the labour movement. That is the second-to-last thing the Cabinet would have wanted.
The last thing they would have wanted is for the rank-and-file to start thinking that any serious dissatisfaction with the direction of government policy was justification for calling a Special Conference – at which errant MPs could be publicly called to account and forced to toe the party line.
Hensley’s failure to grasp the democratic consequences and possibilities of an attempted fudge of the nuclear-free policy blinded him to the political solution that was staring Labour’s protagonists in the face. If the Cabinet was willing let the nuclear-free policy go through on the party’s terms, then the party would let Douglas’s radical economic “reforms” go through on the Cabinet’s terms.
Which is, of course, exactly what happened.
The tragedy of that historic trade-off lay in the devastating consequences that were bound to flow from allowing Douglas a free hand in economic policy. The introduction of his hard-line free-market ideology meant that the Left’s nuclear-free victory could never be anything more than a lonely tower of progressive achievement in a rapidly growing city of reaction. Before many years had passed, much higher and uglier buildings would completely obscure the tower. Eventually, a day would come when it was declared a danger to surrounding structures and torn down.
Hensley’s book is just the latest sign that the days of New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy are numbered. He has waited nearly thirty years for his fudge to come back into contention: always confident that while the passions of the people may wax and wane, the long-term interests of New Zealand are as unchanging as his efforts to advance them have been unceasing.
The idealistic fires that gave us our nuclear-free status have burned out. The rust of reaction continues its relentless advance.
thanks Chris – I listened to Hensley being interviewed by Chris Laidlaw and wondered which country he was actually working for….
You really should not listen to Chris Laidlaw. He is an ecological, energetic and financial pillock who is firmly committed to business as usual when business as usual is murdering the planet we live on.
When I heard his ‘in depth investigation’ into NZs energy future in 2006 which did not even mention Peak Oil ONCE I realised what his game was, and what National Radio is all about.
NR is toxic to the soul and toxic to the planet, a propaganda outlet full of talking heads. Wake up people!
.
Yes, Afewknowthetruth, sadly, I must reluctantly agree with you. There was a time when National Radio, and Chris Laidlaw in particular, were founts of independent thought. I can understand the commercial media being but propagandists for their corporate dictators, but surely National Radio should have a little editorial freedom?
At the risk of being branded a conspiracy theorist, who calls the shots here, and how do they get away with it?
Mr Hensley is a prize prick alright. Obsequiousness defines him.
Rust does indeed not sleep as those of us that grew up on ‘time and a half’ and guaranteed hours know well. No need for defeatism though, unions like Unite show the way forward. Engage the young and refight the old battles.
The 80s No Nukes push had a hell of a lot of young people involved and was won virtually street by street with posters in residential front windows and District council by District council. It is easy enough now to forget all those thousands of SS20s and Pershings. Former silos these days are being converted in the US into luxury survivalist enclaves.
So stuff Hensley and keep on keeping on.
I wouldn’t be so quick to declare ash where once there was fire Chris. Sadly there are many fires of the kiwi conscience that have been doused and dimmed, but the nuclear-free identity I think you may find has glowing embers still that may well ignite in the presence of oxygen. It’s one of our few world-stage defining moments as a young country and is woven deeply into our collective fabric and psyche. For all the unpicking that has gone on, the primary threads are still there, as evidenced by the reaction to Brash’s “gone by lunch time” supposed quip.
I have to admit I am overall pro-nuclear POWER in certain locations. That said, New Zealand is NOT one of them. To be against something for the sake of being against it never made much sense to me. A nuclear power station is not a nuclear bomb. Indeed, it is nothing like a nuclear bomb, and as France has unequivocally shown, when operated diligently, it is a safe (and actually relatively clean) way to harness totally natural power (there is no hocus pocus, the power is from the atom, which is just as natural as sunshine). To build them in sites prone to earthquakes or extreme weather events, however, not so smart (as Japan has recently tragically shown).
But while France was generating that relatively clean power at home they polluted our backyard. Something the public here had enough of.
Are you referring to the Pacific nuclear tests?
Of course that was reprehensible, but had absolutely NOTHING to do with nuclear POWER, and everything to do with nuclear WEAPONS. The latter I am vehemently against.
Much of this country’s sentiment towards nuclear policy is influenced by opposition to nuclear weapons tests conducted in the region through history. Even though this country’s nuclear-free legislation doesn’t prohibit nuclear power plants (land based) and nuclear power has its fair share of benefits, I think it’ll be a hard time trying to sell the virtues of nuclear power to New Zealanders given anti-nuclear is so deeply engraved in the national psyche. Frankly, I wouldn’t have confidence with a nuclear power plant/s here.
I suppose a certain amount of anti-US sentiment might be a contribution, since many anti-nuclear protestors were opposed to the US war in Vietnam, a popular sentiment during the counterculture era. I think this country’s nuclear-free legislation is effective in preventing excessive kowtowing to the US and instead give this country a more conscientious stand on the world stage. What would visiting US warships be good for? The country’s prostitution industry?
I think there is zero need for NZ to have nuclear power stations. In fact, I’d be extremely against the idea. NZ is extremely prone to seismic events, and you simply can’t realistically build a nuclear power plant to withstand “a worst possible scenario”, as Japan just proved. However, I can see it as a reasonable compromise (safety vs emissions vs capital/operating cost per kWh) in countries like Australia and the US (central and eastern, NOT California!) for example. Nuclear power may not a renewable resource, but frankly there is likely 10,000’s of years worth of fuel available (unlike carbon based sources) and imo could form part of a “greenish” energy policy for certain countries. The nuclear waste really can be rendered “safe” in deep mines after processing.
How big do you think NZ’s backyard is?
Well many protestors of the era were opposed to nuclear tests in the Pacific, especially the South Pacific. I am not implying this country has any hegemonic ambitions in this area. As far as this country’s nuclear-free legislation goes its effective so far as New Zealand’s territorial waters of 12 nautical miles.
With AGW and its associated climate change already beginning to change weather systems and weather patterns, predicting where extreme weather events will happen is arguably nothing more than guesswork.
You do like writing crap.
There is no such thing as safe nuclear.
1 No permanent solution has been devised for dealing with radioactive waste that will continue to be radioactive for tens of thousands of years. It is all being held in temporary storage that requires constant monitoring, and in many instances constant cooling.
2. France’s nuclear facilities were in deep trouble during the 2003 heat-wave and nearly had to be shut down due to lack of cooling water.
3. The extraction and refining of uranium causes CO2 emissions and is therefore a global warming activity.
4. The manufacture of steel, concrete, copper, and plastics etc. causes emissions. The transport of materials to construction sites and the activity of construction cause CO2 emission and are therefore global warming activities. CO2 emissions pose one of the greatest threats to continued life as we know it on this planet. (another being meltdown of nuclear facilities when the oil economy collapses).
I could go on with.
The fact that the nuclear industry has managed to churn out propaganda fir many decades and has managed to conceal numerous ‘accidents’ does not make it safe.
You do like writing crap.
You’re getting to be pretty good at it yourself.
There is no such thing as safe nuclear.
Same is true for cars, buses, airplanes and ladders, but we just keep using them. Shame on us, putting our lives in danger like that. See there is a thing called “acceptable risk”. Look it up.
No permanent solution has been devised for dealing with radioactive waste that will continue to be radioactive for tens of thousands of years.
There is nothing wrong with dumping nuclear waste in deep mines, especially after processing. No radiation escapes, and no one cares about the environment at the bottom of a mine.
France’s nuclear facilities were in deep trouble during the 2003 heat-wave and nearly had to be shut down due to lack of cooling water.
“Nearly”. And so what if they did have to shut them down? No power for a few days? Wow. Isn’t that better than no/low power ALL the time? Or do you think good old “safe” coal is where it’s at?
The extraction and refining of uranium causes CO2 emissions and is therefore a global warming activity.
Citation required. Or do you seriously mean using oil for mining machinery? No reason they can’t use hydrogen or ethanol fuel for mining machinery, the former generated from nuclear/hydro/solar power, the latter from crops.
4. The manufacture of steel, concrete, copper, and plastics etc. causes emissions. The transport of materials to construction sites and the activity of construction cause CO2 emission and are therefore global warming activities.
True for EVERY fucking power source: including wind, hydro, solar.
I could go on with.
Please do.
On the matter of nuclear energy, humans worked out the easy part of how to extract heat energy from a mass of radioactive metal but never got round to working out the hard part; what to do with all the bulky waste that continues to be radioactive for tens of thousands of years.
All the radioactive waste that has been generated since 1943 that has not leaked out of corroding barrels and ‘containment’ facilities and into the ground (check the clean-up of Hanford) is in temporary storage, awaiting technological breakthrough and global financial boom times to pay for long term storage: neither will eventuate.
Since all nuclear facilities are totally dependent on the oil economy, and since the global oil economy is falling off Hubbert’s Curve, (with the plummeting stage commencing 2014 or 2015) it follows that ‘we’ will be in deep shit a decade from now, when electric grids are going down all over the world and the cooling water stops flowing in the storage tanks (a.k.a. Fukushima).
Those who actually think about the real future (not the fantasy land stuff that politicians, National Radio, the corporate media and uninformed masses are looking forward to) are more than concerned that every nuclear facility on the planet will become a Fukushima some time in the 2020s unless shut down long before the collapse of western civilisation occurs.
Rust Never Sleeps was hugely influenced by British Punk although the influence is very subtle, except where Young name checks Johnny Rotten, giving him Elvis’s crown. There’s a quality in the music that wasn’t there in any of Young’s earlier records. Essentially this is the point where punk crosses into country rock and passes down to contemporary Americana/country. Making it arguably Young’s most influential record. I understand Young and Lyndon are good friends.
A number of points-need to be made. The nuclear debate in 1983-85 was conducted by most participants ignorant, often deliberately of the strategic reality of NZ and the world at the time. I Contributed a few articles at the time on the matter to NBR, Timaru Herald and ‘Nuclear Visitors’ in NZIIA- International Review J/F-85
(1) Civilian nuclear power installation and the futhur construction of nuclear power vessels other than CVNs and subs was finished from about the time of Three mile island in 1979 on the grounds of cost and safety. Plans to convert the USN to nuclear power had been abandoned and were not going to be restarted by Reagan.
(2) MFAT and the relevant arms of defence, ie the Naval officers and the Orion crews had entirely different attitudes. The diplomats and Muldoon and Palmer had no desire to confuse themselves with any actual facts on the matter and in fact ran out of the room with their hands over the ears when high American officials tried to tell them the truth about nuclear armament. The RNZN officers who knew the truth seemed to have had zero influence, probably being regarded as distasteful militarists by the diplomates
(3) Claims that their were viable compromises like inviting OPH Perry frigates which would have preserved an absolutist NZ position are nonsense. The assertion that all their Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers and Carriers were nuclear capable and sometimes armed was the second line of British and US deterence and there was no way the US could accept a declaration that the most modern half of its frigate fleet the Perry class were not nuclear armed or capable. In fact the Perry class could rapidly have been adapted to carry helicopters armed with USNs large stock of nuclear depth charges and the new frigates were an intergrated part of the USNs a/s strategy intended to twin with the sometimes nuclear armed Knox frigates.
Part of the difficulty for American officials was doubtlessly was they were facing a non nuclear declaration from a small nation, that had been buying sophisticated weapons since 1960 largely intended by other users as nuclear weapons , platforms. Both the Orions and Skyhawks appear to have arrived in NZ, fitted to use and trigger nuclear weapons – against specific instructions by NZ govts and the Leander frigates were designed with the Wasp helicopter intended as a delivery system for nuclear weapons and HMS Southland’s Ikara missile was in its British RN system basicially an enhanced long range vision of Asroc intended by the RN to carry a nuclear warhead.
Indeed a retired RN Lt Cmdr, Dick Ryan told me that the Russians could only assume NZ was nuclear armed because its frigates and aircraft made no sense unless they were nuclear armed.
(3) Nuclear deterence was not a failsafe concept. General LeMay and many of the high military staff very much wanted to strike at the Soviet Union in 1962, using the Cuban crisis as a pretext for a first strike in which they believed the US would suffer containable retalitory damage. The head of the Soviet Union, Andropov seemed to be thinking and moving on similar lines in 1983. At that time the Soviet Unions spies had long broken all communications with US naval units including SSBNs which were being tracked in real time due to espionage and increasingly fast and silent subs.
My own view is that Lange like the Americans and Australians grasped that there was no realistic compromise from the start in mid 1984. Lange acted to preserve his own reputation, position, party and Government. It may well be concievable that a non political Labour cabinet in 1985 might have decided to admit the Buchanan, but the odd are that it would have been the end of the Government and probably Labour and that quite possibly the work of both Douglas and Lange would have been undone. It is difficult to know what Helen Clark would have done, but he doubt she could have continued to support the Government and know she never believed the Rowling declearation that NZ could be nuclear free and in Anzus was anything more than a political contrivance and impossiblity. I think it irrelevant anyway as my own view is that Lange was just playing for time and knew from the start that the issue could not be opened up to the full cabinet or cabinet committee as he had no reliable personal allies.
It is difficult to know what to make of the Hensley, other than an old mans semi academic thesis- it essentially seems to be CIS sponsored work to get the residual Act types a few brownie points in helping to support the British govt desire to restart building nuclear power plants and the usual dishonesty of the Act people that they in anyway genuinely support the West, Defence, the RNZAF. Act and MFAT being pacifist organisations at heart with little desire to support the US defence effort. Hensley seems the odd man out among the generally dovish MFAT people.
[…] Rust Never Sleeps: Nuclear-Free New Zealand And Its Enemies By Chris Trotter https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/12/rust-never-sleeps-nuclear-free-new-zealand-and-its-enemies/ […]
Comments are closed.