Nuclear-Free Zones and the Activist Archive
In this exhibition, I wish to consider the concept of an ‘activist’ archive, and how the archive can change the scale of historical narratives. Much discussion has revolved around the connection between archives and state and elite power, as well as the perceived truths they can tell researchers. The Campaign for International Co-Operation and Disarmament (CICD) collected material that is not related to state power, rather coming from an activist perspective. Within the CICD archive, ‘activist’ truths are dispersed, influencing the research narratives constructed. Schwartz and Cook state ‘archivists appraise, collect, and preserve the props with which notions of identity are built’.[1] For this collection, replace archivist with the activist. From this selection, researchers must interrogate the choices and the constructed narratives of the ‘activist’ archive. To showcase this effect, I present narratives about nuclear-free zones, considering how scale functions in the relaying of their creation. This exhibition moves from local examples to international treaties, considering the absences in existing histories which can be filled by this archival material.
CICD collected much material, ranging from audio files, photos, to general ephemera. The subjects bounce between time and place, reflecting a multitude of political interests. The material I looked through was stamped with CICD library, leading to the belief that the pamphlets, magazines, and newsletters must have past hands, lent out to spread information. Archives ‘do not simply arrive or emerge fully formed,’ they are slowly formed over the organisation’s life.[2] Further, the narrative is ‘not just in but as the archive,’ reflecting local activism as integral to the archive.[3]
CICD was founded in 1959 by unionists, church leaders and peace activists.[4] The organisation was involved in a variety of peace activities which incorporated an anti-nuclear stance. Their website repeats the belief: 'only through peace can all of humanity experience true wellbeing. In order to survive and succeed, humanity must learn from its history and avoid the scourge of war in order to refrain from destroying ourselves and our environment'.[5]
Here is a list of nuclear-free local councils in the different Australian states. It brings into question the scale of anti-nuclear activism. Most narratives of the development of nuclear-free zones focus on their geopolitical ramifications, the actors being national governments. However, as this material shows, a local history can be told, emphasising activism and ordinary people. While, nuclear activism 'transcends and crosses national boundaries,' in its networks and its concerns, its actions manifest locally, as shown in this list.[6]
This absence of accessible local histories derived from material such as this item leads to multiple questions. The role of place has a function here, many of these councils being inner-city locales, which were never at risk of being used for nuclear production. These zones can then be interpreted as symbolic acts. From this interpretation, questions follow: what did this action mean to these local councils, to both the representatives and constituents? Further, how did these declarations come to pass?
This next item highlights multiple scales at once, presenting nuclear-free zones on three levels: local, national and international. This map/poster was preceded by like others, illustrating the growth of nuclear-free zones over time. This item showcases the move from just local zones, to the national policy of nuclear exclusion. Further, a transnational approach could be considered, questioning why an Australian organisation would preserve this item. Kirchhof and Meyer argue for transnational histories of nuclear and peace activism, this item and archive providing material for such narratives.
On February 1st, 1985, the NZ Lange government refused to approve a US ship visit for a nuclear-capable vessel, following a policy of national nuclear exclusion.[7] This policy strained the relations between ANZUS countries, with the Reagan administration terminating intelligence and military connections with New Zealand.[8] The policy was legislated on July 4th, 1987, New Zealand passing the Nuclear-Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, banning nuclear armed and powered vessels from entering New Zealand.[9] It was up to the ministers to decide who entered as they did not trust their allies to declare nuclear capability.[10] With tension within the ANZUS alliance, the Australian and New Zealand governments focused on economic ties between the nations, avoiding nuclear questions.[11] What is absent in this narrative is local and transnational activism, as shown here in the item.
At the bottom, there are also calls for support for the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, enacted in 1985. The acknowledgement of each zone scale is often missing from recounts of the development of such zones. This archive and its materials provide avenues to consider scale and narrative in new ways.
This last item is a section of an article from Peace Papers on the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, representing an international scale through its subject matter.
Lobbied for by Australia’s Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, the treaty was signed on August 6th, 1985, by 8 out of 14 members of the South Pacific Forum.[12] It provisioned against the manufacture and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the stationing of weapons, banned testing and opposed waste dumping at sea.[13] This treaty received criticism, as showcased here in the item, Australia having 'watered-down' the provisions, to gain support from the US, never to be received, the US choosing not to sign.[14] This treaty highlights negotiations between Australia and its Pacific neighbours, which felt pressure being both economically dependent on Australia and other larger states regionally, as well as wishing to end French nuclear testing in the area.[15]
Power notes that Hawke felt pressure from 'union 'leftists', church groups and other lobbies,' which reflects the composition of CICD.[16] Peace Papers and similar publications were a mainstay of the CICD library and subsequent archive. The sentiment expressed in the article of a wasted opportunity for a 'real statement for peace and disarmament,' most likely reflected the feeling amongst the organisation. In this sense, the archive creates the narrative of criticism towards the government, structured into the collection process, and represented in the items. The archive brings to light a close picture of activist sentiment, which I found to be largely missing from secondary recounts of these treaties and nuclear-free zones.
This archive presents a ‘true’ narrative, in the sense that one can draw conclusions from its materials. However, the archive shapes meaning, through the collection and selection of material, presenting ‘activist’ truths. Further, scale is revealed to be determining of narrative. Secondary sources consulted for this project reflected geopolitical insights, focusing on national actions. These archives present opportunities for local and transnational narratives, highlighting activism in the pursuit of nuclear-free zones.
Footnotes:
[1] Joan M. Schwartz and Terry Cook, ‘Archives, Records, and Power: The Making of Modern Memory’, Archival Science 2 (2002): 16.
[2] Antoinette M. Burton, ed., ‘Introduction: Archive Fever, Archive Stories’, in Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History (Durham, N.C: Duke University Press, 2005), 1–24, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1168379.
[3] Burton, ‘Introduction,’ 6.
[4] ‘Campaign for International Co-Operation and Disarmament (CICD) - History’, accessed 16 May 2019, http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/25747/20100921-1553/www.cicd.org.au/index0f91.html?category=about&page=cicdhistory.
[5] ‘Campaign for International Co-Operation and Disarmament (CICD) - History’.
[6] Astrid Mignon Kirchhof and Jan-Henrik Meyer, ‘Global Protest against Nuclear Power. Transfer and Transnational Exchange in the 1970s and 1980s’, Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung 39, no. 1 (147) (2014): 166.
[7] Kevin P. Clements, ‘New Zealand’s Role in Promoting a Nuclear-Free Pacific’, Journal of Peace Research 25, no. 4 (December 1988): 395.
[8] Clements, ‘New Zealand’s Role,’ 395.
[9] Clements, ‘New Zealand’s Role,’ 396.
[10] Clements, ‘New Zealand’s Role,’ 396.
[11] Clements, ‘New Zealand’s Role,’ 403.
[12] Paul F. Power, ‘The South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone’, Pacific Affairs 59, no. 3 (Autumn 1986): 455; Jeffrey S. Lantis, ‘Elections and Enduring Realities: Australia’s Nuclear Debate’, Arms Control Today 38, no. 3 (2008): 24.
[13] Lantis, ‘Elections and Enduring Realities,’ 24.
[14] Michael Hamel-Green, ‘Regional Arms Control in the South Pacific: Island State Responses to Australia’s Nuclear Free Zone Initiative’, The Contemporary Pacific 3, no. 1 (SPRING 1991): 78.
[15] Hamel-Green, ‘Regional Arms Control in the South Pacific,’ 60, 74.
[16] Power, ‘The South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone,’ 463.