Rudd regime abandoned nuclear disarmament backing The former Labor government in effect abandoned its advocacy of nuclear disarmament because it considered continued reliance on "extended nuclear deterrence" provided by the US an essential foundation for Australian defence strategy, according to diplomatic documents released under freedom-of-information laws. Australian officials are also planning to work against humanitarian organisations campaigning for a global ban on nuclear weapons. Declassified diplomatic cables, emails and briefings show the Australian government refused to endorse an 80-nation statement delivered at this year's non-proliferation treaty meeting in Geneva in April because it included a reference to an International Red Cross resolution that highlighted "the incalculable human suffering associated with any use of nuclear weapons." Australian officials considered this reference to be part of a campaign to delegitimise the possession of nuclear weapons, including by the US. The documents, obtained by a disarmament advocacy group the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, provide a detailed account of how Australian diplomats worked behind the scenes to oppose international moves to open negotiations for a global nuclear weapons ban while the Australian government continued to publicly express support for the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. In 2009, the Labor government established an international commission, headed by former foreign affairs minister Gareth Evans, to boost faltering nuclear disarmament efforts. Announcing the initiative during a visit to Japan, prime minister Kevin Rudd said: "It's impossible to visit Hiroshima and not be moved by what you see. It is a graphic human story of the horrendous impact of nuclear weapons. "Across the world today we have some 10,000 nuclear warheads currently in operation and some 20,000 in storage - many, and probably most, of greater capacity than that bomb which took out Hiroshima all those years ago," Mr Rudd said. The newly released documents, some formerly classified secret and AUSTEO - for Australian eyes only - indicate that Australian diplomats and defence officials consider a ban on nuclear weapons incompatible with Australia's reliance on the US's "extended nuclear deterrence," which it is claimed "has provided security and stability in our region for more than 60 years and [has] underpinned regional prosperity." In the lead-up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference, South Africa invited all parties to the treaty to endorse a two-page statement expressing deep concern "about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons." Eighty nations endorsed the statement but Australia was not among them. It objected to a reference to a 2011 International Red Cross resolution that in turn referred to a 1996 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons. Australia and New Zealand had sought the ICJ opinion in response to French nuclear testing in the South Pacific in 1995. But Australian officials argued last May that the court's opinion that the use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law "rubs up against our reliance on extended US nuclear deterrence." The documents show that Australia's refusal to endorse the South African-sponsored statement prompted Australian Red Cross chief executive officer Robert Tickner to seek an explanation from foreign affairs minister Bob Carr. The chief of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's international security division, Caroline Millar, recommended a minimalist approach, saying she was "keen not to give it too much oxygen." Senator Carr's reply, almost a month after Mr Tickner's inquiry, claimed Australia had not been properly consulted on the statement and made no reference to Australia's position on the Red Cross resolution, the primary source of contention. Professor Evans, still closely engaged in nuclear disarmament issues, was later strongly critical of the Australian position, saying the statement had "optical significance and momentum" and that governments needed to "stand on the right side of history." The declassified cables reveal that certain nations, apparently the US and other allies, had "expressed their concerns to [Australia] about the South African led/drafted statement because of concern that the humanitarian consequences agenda is being led by those connected to the delegitimisation agenda (i.e. delegitimisation of not only use but also possession [of nuclear weapons]) ." In a cable sent on April 29, Australian diplomats reported on non-government organisation activity on the margins of the nuclear treaty conference, saying: "The NGOs were clear. The purpose of the humanitarian agenda was to reinvigorate domestic debates about nuclear weapons, leading to the near-term negotiations of a treaty banning them. For this reason, many (mostly US allies) baulked at the statement because of the inherent contradiction of pursuing the outlawing of the possession of nuclear weapons while relying on extended nuclear deterrence. A DFAT briefing paper dated May 23, 2013, titled "Nuclear weapons convention and humanitarian consequences," stated: "The US guarantee of extended nuclear deterrence has provided security and stability in our region for more than 60 years and [has] underpinned regional prosperity." Talking points provided to defence minister Stephen Smith in February 2012 similarly asserted that: "Australia's security benefits from extended nuclear deterrence under the US alliance . . . Australia has an interest in a safe, secure and reliable US nuclear stockpile. Another ministerial briefing in May 2012 further argued that US extended nuclear deterrence provided "a stable and reliable sense of assurance and has over the years removed the need for Australia to consider more significant and expensive defence options." The documents also suggest that Australian officials have planned to work to undermine the efforts of "progressive states" and "their civil society partners" to advance a global ban on nuclear weapons. A cable from the Australian mission in Geneva to Canberra last June reported that the treaty meeting had been an "unhappy affair" and argued that achieving a consensus at the next treaty review conference in 2015 would be "challenging." The cable recommended that Australia engage in humanitarian-focused discussions about nuclear weapons to help dissuade other nations from pursuing a ban: "Lest it give traction and momentum to proposals counterproductive to effective nuclear disarmament, we consider that we need to engage more actively with the humanitarian consequences discourse." The Australian director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Tim Wright, expressed disappointment that Australian diplomats hoped to undermine efforts to ban nuclear weapons. Australia cannot credibly advocate nuclear disbarment while claiming that US nuclear weapons guarantee our security or prosperity. Not only is this a ludicrous notion, it is also a dangerous one because it signals to other nations that nuclear weapons are useful and necessary," Mr Wright said. These declassified exchanges between government officials clearly demonstrate that Australia's talk of nuclear disarmament has been insincere and hollow.