By Chris Trotter*
When New Zealand went to war on 5 August 1914 it was by vice-regal declaration. The Governor-General, Lord Liverpool, chose to announce the commencement of hostilities with Germany from the steps of what is now the General Assembly Library. Although the country’s leading politicians were gathered around him, there wasn’t even the slightest nod in the direction of democracy. Neither the House of Representatives, nor the Legislative Council, saw any need for debate. In London the King-Emperor, George V, acting upon the advice of his ministers, had declared war, and as a loyal Dominion of the British Empire, New Zealand fell in behind the “Mother Country” without hesitation.
Though more than a century has passed since the outbreak of the First World War, there remains a deeply-embedded fraction of the New Zealand state apparatus which continues to regard New Zealand as simply a loyal cog in a much larger and more powerful imperial machine. Like their forebears, these civil servants see no meaningful role for the democratic public in determining matters of national security and defence. Thankfully, they are no longer so arrogant as to sanction a declaration of war without allowing Parliament to go through the motions of democratic debate. The possibility that a solid majority of MPs might decline to follow their advice would not, however, occur to them.
That this fraction remains so sure of itself on matters of national security and defence is rather odd. At least three times in the last 50 years, its expectations have been overturned by a democratically elected government – all of them Labour. The first rejection came in 1973, when Prime Minister Norman Kirk astonished the world by sending a New Zealand navy frigate to protest French atmospheric nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll. The second came in the mid-1980s, when Prime Minister David Lange refused to renege on Labour’s promise to create – and enforce – a nuclear-free New Zealand. The third occurred in 2003, when Prime Minister Helen Clark and her Labour-led Government refused to join the USA, the United Kingdom and Australia in their illegal invasion of Iraq.
In all three cases the reaction of what some refer to as the “Deep State” was one of alarm and embarrassment. Of the five digits making up the Anglo-Saxon fist, New Zealand is obviously the “pinkie finger”. When the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia set out to deliver a geopolitical blow, New Zealand is expected to contribute to its impact – not witter on to the rest of the world about morality and international law.
It was the job of the defence chiefs, the national security apparatus, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to make sure that when the “Empire” (aka “The Five Eyes”) delivered its orders, New Zealand stood to attention and saluted. Any wayward lefties were to be brought into line by the defence and security experts who best understood New Zealand’s permanent interests – and knew who its friends were. Failure to secure the pinkie-finger’s compliance could only mean a huge loss of face for all those Kiwi soldiers and spooks who, for years, had been reassuring their Anglo-Saxon colleagues that everything was under control.
The democratic public (as opposed to the leading financial, commercial, industrial and farming interests, for whom democracy is either an irritating distraction from the all-important job of generating profits for shareholders, or a genuine threat to same) has never warmed to the idea of expending blood and treasure for the greater glory of British and American imperialism.
As a people living in one of the oldest enduring democracies on Earth, albeit a very small one, New Zealanders have long grasped the concept of “soft power”. Going all the way back to the Liberal Government of Balance and Seddon (1891-1912) the democratic public have revelled in their country’s description as “the social laboratory of the world”. In both the League of Nations and the United Nations, New Zealand has taken advantage of the fact that it offers not the slightest military threat to anyone to become a consistent voice for peace, justice and the rule of international law.
It is interesting to note that Sir Robert Jones’ New Zealand Party (1983-93) although resolutely free-market in its economic outlook, also advocated massive reductions in military expenditure and withdrawing New Zealand from the ANZUS alliance. Jones personally favoured following the example of the tiny Central American state of Costa Rica and abolishing the New Zealand armed forces altogether!
Such was the heterodox political environment out of which the Fourth Labour Government’s anti-nuclear policy (and the United States’ angry reaction to it) gave birth to the broadly supported idea of New Zealand operating – and maintaining – its own “independent foreign policy”. That this was essentially Labour’s diplomatic position was strongly reinforced when Helen Clark eliminated the fighter-arm of the RNZAF and refused to participate the invasion of Iraq.
Small wonder, then, that Defence Minister Andrew Little’s release of the latest Defence Policy Review, and New Zealand’s first National Security Strategy, has elicited such a critical response from Helen Clark. As Clark herself notes, the documents bear all the hallmarks of those defence and national security “experts” whose primary allegiance has always been to the “Anglosphere” rather than the democratic public:
“Defence policy and security strategy documents released in Wellington today suggest that NZ is abandoning its capacity to think for itself and instead is cutting and pasting from 5 Eyes’ partners. Drumbeat from officials has been consistent on this for some time.
“This is reminiscent of the Frank Corner-led Defence Committee of Inquiry of 1985 set up by David Lange, which in effect – and in the end unsuccessfully – tried to put brakes on the Govt’s nuclear free and independent foreign policy.
“Now there appears to be an orchestrated campaign on joining the so-called ‘Pillar 2’ of AUKUS which is a new defence grouping in the Anglosphere with hard power based on nuclear weapons. New Zealand removed itself from such a vice when it adopted its nuclear-free policy.”
It is extremely rare for a former Labour prime minister to intervene in a live policy debate with such acerbic force. Clark’s tweet (viewed more than 90,000 times and counting) indicates just how seriously these documents, formulated under Chris Hipkins’ Labour government, threaten the legacies of Kirk, Lange and Clark herself.
On display in Little’s defence of these documents is just how far the centre-left of New Zealand politics has drifted from the foreign-policy and defence shibboleths of even 20 years ago. What we appear to be witnessing is the same moral surrender that accompanied the “Red Scare” of the early 1950s, when Labour abandoned its traditional socialist objectives out of fear of being branded Red China-loving “commies”. Indeed, it would not be surprising, at this point, to hear Little say that he is “neither for, nor against” New Zealand having a nuclear-free and independent foreign policy. (Just as the Labour Opposition leader, Walter Nash, infamously declared that Labour was “neither for, nor against” the Watersiders during the bitter Waterfront Lockout of 1951.)
Those passing the steps of the General Assembly Library late at night should not be surprised to encounter the ghost of Lord Liverpool – smiling.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
33 Comments
Times change and with that capability but not altogether, necessity. To draw back to where Mr Trotter commences with WW1 New Zealand had in 1911 funded the construction of the battle cruiser HMS New Zealand (which is said to have fired off more ammunition at Jutland than any other vessel.) Today’s equivalent would be funding of one of Australia’s forthcoming nuke subs, and that ain’t going to happen simply because of deficiency in cash and the requisite ideology. Only a handful of nations have sufficient military to defend themselves from invasion and often that is bolstered by their sheer size of territory or natural barriers or nuke capability for instance. Therefore those that are more vulnerable have relied on treaties and allies. That sort of activity and consensual necessity has been around since before recorded time and there is not much out there to indicate that it is no longer in play and for New Zealand then it would seem a case of like it or lump it.
All very well, when China was a peasant backwater that was going to be assimilated into the Democratic pack via the input of all of our economic means. If we assisted them to become like us, they would.
But that hasn't happened. It was never their Plan. They had learned from the Opium Wars (and why we have them exporting the current iteration to all of us today) and mercantilism, and their Plan was for us to become like them. And it still is.
What New Zealand past policy initiatives recognised was that 'our' global order was inevitable, even if we stood aside from the mainstream from time to time. But that isn't the case today. So we will have to change or become the much lampooned New Xiland without a shot being fired.
The only reason I was considering voting Labour was due to them looking like they trying to keep us out of any overseas wars.
All of the weapons we will be looking to buy have just been proven to be overpriced trash. By the time we actually get the weapons: China, Iran, Russia or whoever else the Imperialists want us to fight will have better weapons that counter or make redundant what we bought.
If we really wanted to defend our selves we could get some BrahMos so we can at least pretend we can sink the first few ships that try to invade.
Indeed. More of this near us is inevitable:
China & Russia Sent Huge Naval Flotilla Toward Alaska; US Responds By Dispatching Destroyers
I was speaking to the Labour ideology.
There are plenty of weapons to fill the need you indicate. i didn't respond because i didn't need to but in buying any weapon system you have to have the means to launch it first which to all intents we do not. Then there is the ability to maintain supply in time of conflict when you actually need them. They do not form a deterrent on their own.
Are you aware of what China has been up to for the last few years?
What weapons, Murray? None of the ones that were sent to Ukraine, I hope. Are you proposing we wait for the US to turn up with air support before we can do anything?
We have not seen a navy go up against modern anti-ship missiles yet. Maybe those don't work </s>, so we could buy more ships to help out?
The other issue with weapons is what's good to defend our islands won't be useful when it has to carried over to SEA and integrated with the US army. I am all for buying to cost effective modern anti-ship missiles with launch platforms with several interceptor planes so we can defend ourselves but that's not what we will be buying as our partners don't sell kind of stuff.
A direct invasion or attack on NZ is the least likely scenario, helping friends in need further north is much more probable. Standing up against coercion and intimidation requires a defence force with reach beyond our 12 mile limit and preferably one that can operate with allies and friends effectively
So we are forking out for someone else war and foreign policy that we will be dragged into without a say. We will never know the counterfactual on if Taiwan could have remained independent indefinitely but we are not responsible for the recent US provocations (they still might stay independent anyway).
But seriously, what weapons would you want us to buy? Everything NATO sent to Ukraine is overpriced junk. In five years time when we have these weapons and are trained on them China and Iran will have the same capabilities. Remember the LAV, spending money on defense does not necessary get us anything.
Modern anti-ship missiles with a few planes as one of the launch options is 500-3000km range. Not that we can buy the long range option or possibly the short range (do you know if we could by BrahMos?).
Tim you're being disingenuous. None of the western nations are sending long rang anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, although it is possible the ones they are sending could be used if adapted to the purpose. But the launching aircraft will be in range of long range defensive systems. I propose we need to build at least a basic defensive capability which would include a strike wing for the airforce. We can extrapolate the exocet performance from the Falklands war on the effectiveness of long range antiship weapons and that leads me to suggest they could be very effective indeed in the right circumstances.
"weapons is what's good to defend our islands won't be useful when it has to carried over to SEA and integrated with the US army" What weapons are you talking about? How can you say that? That is just too big a guess to be credible. What weapons would you have to defend ourselves as the BraMos you are suggesting is not that great? What numbers and how would you launch them? Why do you say our potential partners do not have the defensive capabilities that we need?
Murry you replied to me, have you got a point? Your just arguing on technicalities and things I have not explained properly to people with no prior knowledge. (I can see I have missed a lot of context and here if you did not follow me from first comment) If you don't understand what I am saying you don't have to replay to me, do some reading and ask questions until you do or if you are really confident say I don't know I am talking about. I'm not writing a long text just because you're lazy.
Go find a better anti-ship weapon for defending our coast. BrahMos (put it into google and start reading) is a cheaper export missile for a lower tech army (but we need a Su30 for air launches). We would have to get our hands on a "Joint Strike Missile" (with F-35 costs) for something of equivalent range from our "approved suppliers". Nothing matches up to Russia's though. We will not be allowed to buy one as BrahMos is Russian designed so this was always a hypothetical (I expected knowledgeable people to pick up on this).
What would we buy? The Ukraine example was for land warfare (separate paragraphs). Go have a read of government press release for some prior knowledge you should have.
Aren't you getting somewhat holier than thou? You stated you voted Labour because they kept us out of wars, but didn't really dig into that to understand why. You then state that all the weapons we will be looking to buy "have just been proven to be overpriced trash" - what weapons are these, and what measure do you use for that assessment? Then you make a comment that is getting close to correct that the time frame to build a defense capability can be problematic. But then you espouse a Indian-Russian missile that is more than 20 years old. Why would that missile be any different or better than the "over priced trash" you referred to earlier?
Do you understand the complexities of logistics requirements during a conflict, not to mention the politics that will influence them? Do you understand modern defensive capabilities of modern ships and aircraft? Do you understand weapons capabilities and what they mean (Wikipedia doesn't cut it). The complexities of what you have suggested , suggests that you don't understand what you're trying to talk about.
Me: "The only reason I was considering voting Labour..."
Your interpretation and recollection of what I said: "You stated you voted Labour..."
I think this the clearest example of your lack of reading comprehension, here. There is more polite way to engage when you don't understand. You just fill in the gaps in your understanding with whatever convenient for you.
Your accumulating so many errors in understanding this is a waste of time. A weapon that started development about 25 years ago is modern weapon as development and testing takes a while. eg F-35
There is a middle ground. Helen Clark and David Lange were both strongly driven by ideology rather than reason. But Helen Clark still made the right decision to stay out of Iraq, although I suspect it was more because of who was pushing the war rather than any knowledge or information they provided which failed to convince her. I tend to agree with the exclusion of nuclear weapons, but the exclusion of nuclear power has the potential to cripple us in discussions about energy options for the future. But that would not have been able to be foreseen at the time the decision was made.
But we are a small nation in the Asia Pacific region and much of the good well we get is rooted in our past willingness to go to the aid of other countries, militarily. Helen Clark crippled our military by getting rid of the strike wing of the airforce, just before she committed troops to Bosnia. Something I consider little short of criminal. I am firmly of the opinion that despite geographically positioned in Australia's shadow, due to HC's blind ideological stance, we are now severely limited in being able to contribute to our own defence in any meaningful way. I suggest that Little's statement is a severe understatement of the reality that is costing us a lot in international relations. Soft power simply does not cut it when you're a little midget with no weapons and the potential aggressor is a giant with a damn big club!
A very thoughtful article. Never really liked Helen Clarke much but in hindsight staying out of Iraq proved the right decision, morally at least. Does anyone care though? No, not really. The big issues are how we manage our relationship with China and what sort of a millitary capability is appropriate. I have never gotten comfortable with walking away from a fighter jet capability. You can't beat the sound of an F-18 or Eurofighter to stir a bit of pride.
As for Costa Rica, there is always a price to pay for the US's altruism.
The common threads thrown up by people opposing NZ defence spending (and my responses) are:
1) "no one's ever going to invade us"
(invasion is a strawman, defence is required for wider, more probable threats to us and our allies/trading partners)
2) "we can't actually defend ourselves, just let the yanks/aussies do it";
(freeloading is never a good idea)
3) we shouldn't be a puppet of US imperialism
(US is no saint but better being subject to supposed US than the bullying, aggressive tactics PRC, as far as I can tell).
4) "PRC is not a threat".
(Australia, Philippines, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam etc have a different view of PRC and are ramping up defence spending accordingly, why should NZ see this differently?)
Time to face up that the benign strategic environment we had in the Clark era are past us and that PRC has been undermining democracy and sovereignty both here and abroad. Mary-Ann Brady's "magic bullets" research about PRC influence and intent here are real concerns. Secret police stations in other countries yet not here??
4) I struggle with the "China bad" narrative. Don't get me wrong as I'm no fan, but they have as much to lose if we do if they set foot in Taiwan or any other sovereign nation. It is an economic equivalent of MAD, the Covid supply chain issues and inflation would pale in comparison.
You could say the same about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They gain very little relative to what they lose, even in the best case scenario for them. It didn't stop them - in an autocracy, the objective welfare of the nation can be less important than shoring up the position of the leader.
With the benefit of hindsight, Russia may rethink the invasion. Also, the Chinese economy is much larger than Russia, relies on imports for most resources and is far more interwoven with the global economy. Chinese own a lot of Wester assets, from Treasuries through to real estate, would they risk all of it being nationalised?
China could also see all of that as a reason why the West wouldn't intervene if they eg. invaded Taiwan. It's mutual dependence, and they might think that Western nations acting rationally would let them do as they wish to preserve prosperity. Essentially because that's what *their* leadership would do.
I didn't think that Russia would outright invade Ukraine. The oligarchy who make decisions lose their access to the high life away from the misery they've created in their own country. But they really didn't think that the West would respond that strongly - they were surprised to have assets frozen, they were surprised to see Ukraine receive as much military support as they have, and they were surprised that Ukraine didn't roll over. Their expectations were rational if you assume that all other powers act on a strictly amoral (and short-termist) basis.
We can't fix our roads, hospitals, schools etc how are we ever going to be able to afford Billions on war machines. Sounds like a good way to go broke and some other power come to save us with a bailout and take over.
I think stay neutral and just train military people to a level that will fill seats in planes etc that the rich nations will supply in the event of conflict.
Look after our trade customers should be the plan.
China preparing for war
xi keeps saying he will retake Taiwan
So NZ should pretend there is no problem due to sucking up for export dairy earnings?
Listen to Kyle Bass on you tube speaking to Hudson Institute recently for evidence.
Economically Nz will have to chose when blockade occurs and USA retaliates via sanctions.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.