03-31-2003, 11:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-31-2003, 11:32 PM by Occhidiangela.)
Excerpt from an article on this issue. Cato institute, a bit hawkish, I confess. I don't have the 65 quid to buy Pugh's book.
"The United States decided to test the ban in late January 1985 by requesting port privileges for the U.S.S. Buchanan. American officials clearly designed this test case to offer Lange's government the least degree of provocation. A conventionally powered destroyer, the Buchanan was a type of warship unlikely to be carrying nuclear weapons. The only question was whether New Zealand would demand an explicit U.S. assurance to that effect. If Reagan administration leaders believed the Lange government's policy was a bluff, they miscalculated. New Zealand officials demanded to know whether the Buchanan carried nuclear weapons, and when the United States refused to divulge that information, the vessel was denied port access.[5]
The Buchanan incident abruptly terminated the Reagan administration's policy of quiet diplomacy. Washington immediately announced several punitive measures. First, it canceled the ANZUS "Sea Eagle" naval exercise scheduled for spring 1985. It also called off a visit to U.S. military headquarters in Hawaii by the New Zealand parliament's defense committee. More ominously, the United States announced that it would restrict the flow of intelligence information to New Zealand. The rationale for this action was most revealing: American officials stated that while New Zealand remained a "friend," its status as a loyal ally was in question, and the sharing of intelligence data was predicated on allied status.[6] Although President Reagan expressed continued friendship toward New Zealand, the message of U.S. actions was that Washington was through tolerating its maverick policies.
Rather than persuading Prime Minister Lange and his associates to alter their anti-nuclear stance, Washington's initial actions seemed to deepen Wellington's intransigence. Lange denounced the U.S. tactics as "akin to the very totalitarianism we're supposed to be fighting against." While he conceded that the measures were serious and damaging, the prime minister defiantly vowed, "New Zealand can live with that."[7]
What the hell have we been doing since 1991? Pres Bush signed the executive order removing tactical nukes from our combatants. Having done that, a good 80% of the fleet would be easily certifiable as non nuclear at no risk to 'security of where nukes are' and so this policy strikes me as one very ready for review. How the heck Pres Clinton did not moderate that position confuses the hell out of me. He was really big on 'getting along' when and where he could.
Putting Sea Eagle back into place would be a boon to US Seventh Fleet and to our general Pacific posture. With a lot of 'blue helmet' maritimve ops in the past 15 years, I am puzzled as to why Washington has neglected to revisit this with an eye to better multilateral operations in the future as the Pacific Rim takes on a greater importance, as it shall, with China trying to become The Big Dog.
Most puzzling.
A few years back, the US stood down its helicopter squadron, if I recall, who used to go out on the Antartic Ice, VXE-6. Has the US completely left Christchurch, or is there still a cooperative agreement there? My nieghbor in Italy, from NZ, had married an American sailor who she had met while he was posted to Christchurch.
Aaaah, I am out of touch with some stuff that I used to be quite current on.
Update.
AH HA!
The Navy left in 1998, to be replaced by an Air National Guard Unit. So, the US still flies support to the South Pole from New Zealand, it just is not a Navy outfit that does it.
Or has the National Guard left also?
"The United States decided to test the ban in late January 1985 by requesting port privileges for the U.S.S. Buchanan. American officials clearly designed this test case to offer Lange's government the least degree of provocation. A conventionally powered destroyer, the Buchanan was a type of warship unlikely to be carrying nuclear weapons. The only question was whether New Zealand would demand an explicit U.S. assurance to that effect. If Reagan administration leaders believed the Lange government's policy was a bluff, they miscalculated. New Zealand officials demanded to know whether the Buchanan carried nuclear weapons, and when the United States refused to divulge that information, the vessel was denied port access.[5]
The Buchanan incident abruptly terminated the Reagan administration's policy of quiet diplomacy. Washington immediately announced several punitive measures. First, it canceled the ANZUS "Sea Eagle" naval exercise scheduled for spring 1985. It also called off a visit to U.S. military headquarters in Hawaii by the New Zealand parliament's defense committee. More ominously, the United States announced that it would restrict the flow of intelligence information to New Zealand. The rationale for this action was most revealing: American officials stated that while New Zealand remained a "friend," its status as a loyal ally was in question, and the sharing of intelligence data was predicated on allied status.[6] Although President Reagan expressed continued friendship toward New Zealand, the message of U.S. actions was that Washington was through tolerating its maverick policies.
Rather than persuading Prime Minister Lange and his associates to alter their anti-nuclear stance, Washington's initial actions seemed to deepen Wellington's intransigence. Lange denounced the U.S. tactics as "akin to the very totalitarianism we're supposed to be fighting against." While he conceded that the measures were serious and damaging, the prime minister defiantly vowed, "New Zealand can live with that."[7]
What the hell have we been doing since 1991? Pres Bush signed the executive order removing tactical nukes from our combatants. Having done that, a good 80% of the fleet would be easily certifiable as non nuclear at no risk to 'security of where nukes are' and so this policy strikes me as one very ready for review. How the heck Pres Clinton did not moderate that position confuses the hell out of me. He was really big on 'getting along' when and where he could.
Putting Sea Eagle back into place would be a boon to US Seventh Fleet and to our general Pacific posture. With a lot of 'blue helmet' maritimve ops in the past 15 years, I am puzzled as to why Washington has neglected to revisit this with an eye to better multilateral operations in the future as the Pacific Rim takes on a greater importance, as it shall, with China trying to become The Big Dog.
Most puzzling.
A few years back, the US stood down its helicopter squadron, if I recall, who used to go out on the Antartic Ice, VXE-6. Has the US completely left Christchurch, or is there still a cooperative agreement there? My nieghbor in Italy, from NZ, had married an American sailor who she had met while he was posted to Christchurch.
Aaaah, I am out of touch with some stuff that I used to be quite current on.
Update.
AH HA!
The Navy left in 1998, to be replaced by an Air National Guard Unit. So, the US still flies support to the South Pole from New Zealand, it just is not a Navy outfit that does it.
Or has the National Guard left also?
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete