By Chris Trotter*
A small force, just three ships, but its impact in a week of geopolitical transformation was devastating. Chinese naval vessels had sailed past Sydney at a distance of just 150 nautical miles. A clearer message to Australia and New Zealand could not have been sent by the Chinese Government: The Pacific is no longer an American lake.
The question to be answered, now, is: How should New Zealand respond? It’s armed forces are in a state of deplorable disrepair. Enlisted men and women are poorly paid and their morale is said to be dangerously low. Recruitment to all three services is bad and getting worse. The Royal New Zealand Navy, the service now in the spotlight, would struggle to show the flag in the Tasman Sea. If it tried, the not unreasonable fear would be that the vessel it sent might not come back. After all, the HMNZS Manawanui didn’t.
Defence Minister Judith Collins acknowledges these difficulties and is pledged to address them. New Zealand’s defence spending, expressed as a percentage of its GDP, is set to double over the next five years.
Unfortunately, that’s not saying much. Currently, New Zealand spends less that 1 percent of GDP on its armed forces. So, even a doubling of that figure would still leave us shy of the 2 percent figure now accepted globally as the minimum spend for any nation wishing to be taken seriously – not only by its enemies, but also by its friends.
According to Statistics NZ: “The size of the New Zealand economy was $NZ415 billion for the year ended June 2024.” Working from this figure, if this country’s defence spending was to be brought up to the new minimum of 2 percent, a sum of roughly $8 billion would need to be appropriated by the House of Representatives. That’s an additional $3 billion on top of the 2024-25 appropriation.
That’s a lot of dollars to spend on guns and ships and planes when your country’s public health service is falling to pieces before its citizens’ horrified eyes. To supply the New Zealand Defence Force with an additional $3 billion, Finance Minister Nicola Willis would either have to embark on a blistering austerity programme reminiscent of Ruth Richardson’s 1991 “Mother of All Budgets”; or, the Coalition Government would have to raise taxes steeply. With an election looming in 2026, neither of those options are politically enticing.
Historically, securing general public support for a sharp increase in defence spending is almost impossible in the absence of a palpable – maybe even an existential – threat.
Following the successful conclusion of the Second World War, the administration of US President Harry S. Truman moved swiftly to restore American society to its pre-war settings. When the behaviour of the Soviet Union made it clear that the USA’s general demobilisation had been a tad premature, Truman rapidly concluded that to secure the appropriation of massive sums for the nation’s defence it would be necessary to, in the words of Senator Arthur Vandenberg: “scare the hell out of the American people”.
Fortunately for Truman, that proved to be less of a problem than many anticipated. Then, as now, the Russians made it easy!
Less so the Chinese – especially in New Zealand. The best efforts of Professor Anne-Marie Brady notwithstanding, casting the Peoples Republic in the role of Stalin’s Soviet Union has proved problematic. Most Kiwis are aware of the huge economic value of their country’s agricultural exports to China, and are, accordingly, in general support of the efforts of successive governments to avoid antagonising China to the point where the relationship between the two countries is jeopardised.
That being the case, not even the presence of Chinese warships in the Tasman is guaranteed to generate the sort of diplomatic breach which the anti-China lobby has been working so assiduously for a decade to provoke. Too many New Zealanders recall the occasions when a New Zealand frigate has tagged along behind the Aussies and Americans in their regular voyages across the South China Sea and through the Taiwan Strait. If New Zealanders are entitled to sail where they please in international waters, then so too, presumably, are the Chinese.
What’s more, in light of the events of the past week, the Washington faction of MFAT faces a new and major problem. While the contrast between the United States and China remained stark, drawing attention to the totalitarian inclinations of its Communist Party rulers remained a reliable strategy. But, President Donald Trump’s affection for dictatorial regimes; the brutality of his transactional approach to international affairs; and his apparent repudiation of the “rules-based international order” in favour of cold-eyed realpolitik; makes it difficult for America (and its increasingly apprehensive allies) to retain their footing on the moral high-ground.
It is difficult to criticise the transactional elements of the relationships forged between China and the micro-states of the Pacific – the Cook Islands being only the latest in a succession of Chinese-initiated bilateral agreements negotiated in New Zealand’s “back yard” – when the United States is demanding half of Ukraine’s rare earths in part-payment for the American munitions supplied to counter Russian aggression.
What those three Chinese warships have produced, however, is a much more compelling argument for aligning New Zealand’s defensive posture in general and its military procurement in particular with Australia’s. In the much colder and more brutal world that is fast emerging from the collapse of the 80-year-old Pax Americana, only the Australians can be relied upon to protect us – and only then if they are satisfied that the Kiwis are pulling their weight.
What does that mean? It means finding that additional $3 billion and spending it. It means a much bigger and more effective navy. It means paying our soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel the sort of money that makes it easy for the NZDF to recruit and retain the best and the brightest young New Zealanders. It means a strategic military vision that makes sense to the NZDF, the politicians, and the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders. And, yes, it probably also means swallowing hard and signing up to AUKUS Pillar 2.
None of this will be of any use, however, in a nation divided against itself. A population composed of mutually antagonistic cultures and identities; a country racked by ideological differences and beset by conflicts made all the more intractable by the demonisation of every side except one’s own, cannot possibly achieve the consensus needed to construct an effective national defence.
If New Zealand is to defend itself, then the very first thing it needs to agree upon is the nature of the state it is defending. Is it a state committed to refashioning its ideas and institutions in conformity with the cultural imperatives of its indigenous people? Is it a state dedicated to maximising the ability of individuals to act effectively in the marketplaces of goods, services, and ideas? Is it a state dedicated to ensuring that every citizen has the support required to realise their full potential? Is it mixture of all three?
Until we can agree upon the shape and purpose of the state for which we are annually appropriating 2 percent (or more) of the nation’s economic output, then the long-overdue refurbishment and rehabilitation of our armed forces is unlikely to, and probably shouldn’t, happen.
Denied the easy option of marching behind British and American drums, and before they simply fall in step with the Australians, New Zealanders should sort-out why, and for what, they are willing to march at all.
*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.
75 Comments
Why the indignation at Chinese warships in the Tasman Sea. It's richly deserved tit for tat:
https://www.asiamediacentre.org.nz/taiwan-welcomes-nz-navy-s-first-taiw…
Pre WW1 there was a perceived threat to the South Pacific from Russia. The NZ nation commissioned and paid for HMS New Zealand , a battlecruiser that reportedly fired more ordnance, at the subsequent battle of Jutland, than any other vessel. In today’s term the equivalent of such a vessel is a nuke submarine (not necessarily so armed.) Naval power has changed from surface vessels. One enemy submarine undetected 200km off shore could devastate NZ. The answer to that is deterrence, being able to retaliate in like form. So to put it into the context of today, and that retaliatory deterrent, perhaps NZ should consider a contribution to Australia’s forthcoming nuke submarines. HMAS Anzac in other words.
Some of HMS New Zealand's guns were installed at North Head, Devonport, for the defence of Auckland during WW2 and a couple of the 4-inch guns are now installed outside the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The captain always wore a Maori warrior's skirt during battles for good luck and this seemed to work as the ship was only struck once by an 11-inch shell that only caused minor damage.
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/three-tiers-and-more-than…-
more STEM workers required......
I'm not so sure of that these days.
The number of cozy arrangements, and the degree of mercenary behaviour shown by some factions now, makes me think that there would be little hesitation in some areas to undermine our polity for personal or in-group advantage, whose members have greater allegiance to those in-groups, rather than the nation.
Chris Trotter is right: we have to figure out what we are as a nation before we can create anything else durable. However, that conversation seems to be impossible.
I agree. However, if we think more laterally about how to rebuild our forces we could save a lot by concentrating on home built drones. We have a company that sends rockets into space and aviation companies that could easily be the best in the world at drones with a little help from the government. Buying frigates or jet planes is not the answer (and way to expensive) and drones are much cheaper and can be built here in NZ.
A clearer message to Australia and New Zealand could not have been sent by the Chinese Government: The Pacific is no longer an American lake.
No, it's not about about US, it's about Australia: stop harassing China on seas and air. just last week, there was a near firing 19 miles off Chinese islands to Aussie P8 airplane.
Three ships in the international water. What is the big deal?
NZ should relax, give the highest praise that the international law is fully respected, and extend a hand of friendship to ask the three ships to dock in Auckland or Wellington for a visit.
Visionary leaders will need to do such.
Please read the transcript of Luxon's media response on NOT the NEWS from the medias in NZ, which are all controlled by the US.
Luxon's words: the exercise is perfectly within the bound of international laws.
What more should I say then? If you think the international law needs to change to suit NZ's interests, then raise it to the UN.
Surely one question is; what do we need a navy for? If China decided to invade-which seems rather unlikely-there is nothing we or Australia could do to prevent them. We need vessels to patrol our waters and presumably they need to be lightly armed, but frigates and destroyers with up to the minute technology? We can't afford them.
Drone swarms > billion dollar floaty bath toys.
NZ can kit itself out with electronic and drone based countermeasures. We have the talent here to launch satellites to coordinate these over the horizon. Far more bang for buck.
But the biggest question as the article says is, why?
We need fast strike to do something about an incursion. Que Muldoon using the Skyhawk's to interdict the rogue Taiwanese squid boat.
Australia cannot protect us.
We rely on the US leadership of 'The West' and the international rule of law. People may criticise the US for all sorts of valid reasons but their commitment to defending the International Rules, both formal and informal (which admittedly heavily benefits them and us) is our only guarantee. If you think China or Russia or India will be interested in ensuring New Zealand continues to governed by and for the interests of New Zealander's you are delusional.
This exercise if directly related to Trump's position on Ukraine, it sends the message that America is not interested in being responsible for managing global order and will only really get involved if it's short-term interests are at stake. We will see much more aggressive and obvious land takes going forward.
New Zealand is a very attractive bolt hole for all sorts of elites from around the world who will be fleeing the climate change induced societal collapse.
To be clear as a retired serviceman, the military have almost always been deplorably paid.
Perhaps our military and hospitals could be funded through deficit funding, not taxation?
And CT is being somewhat disingenuous when he compares the transit of these ships to the transit of ours through the Taiwan Straight. Our transit was notified and we did nothing to disrupt civilian commercial traffic. The details of exactly what occurred on the HMNZS Manawanui have not come out yet so I would suggest it perhaps does not fit to use it as an example of the state of our navy or other services.
But the message is clear, the ideological neglect of our military needs to be corrected. That will cost much more than it will take to maintain it, but it is necessary.
The issue is getting here in sufficient numbers without being spotted - that maybe a big ask these days considering NZ has some of the most modern maritime surveillance aircraft in the world (Boeing P-8A Poseidon). Australia has modern AWAC planes in the form of Boeing E-7 Wedgetail
My argument is that "sufficient numbers" would be very small. You wouldn't need much more than a battle group pretending to be on an exercise. A couple of large civilian liners or container ships secretly carrying troops and equipment already close by. Maybe a carrier, but may not be necessary. They would just need to seize the airports and a few key areas. Maybe take the whole government by surprise by seizing the Beehive while it is in session. I'm sure they would have it all planned out well.
Nuke subs have outmoded aircraft carriers as they did battleships. A deep water sub is virtually undetectable with sufficient missiles to destroy all strategic targets. For NZ it would just take one strike. Once done probably wouldn’t need to put many boots on the ground. President Eisenhower foresaw this in the 1950s when he transferred the nuclear deterrence from the Strategic Air Command to the submarine force. That is why today the USA has over sixty of these vessels in service and with allies outnumber “the opposition” more than three to one. It is why Australia is buying these vessels and Japan potentially. In summary ninety or so of these vessels position unknown with ability to retaliate to any attack is undeniably a deterrent.
Exactly. And that element surely became evident during the covid pandemic where China made it clear they didn’t give a damn about the rest of world. Ok it wasn’t a military venture but it crystallised that NZ would be best to safeguard its security with its traditional allies.
Ok it wasn’t a military venture but it crystallised that NZ would be best to safeguard its security with its traditional allies.
Trump has made it abundantly clear that our traditional allies are not interested in protecting us. If the US is walking back from Western Europe why would they be remotely interested in defending us?
Nukes are inherently noisy. Coolant flow requirements in the reactor dictate that level, although they are much quieter now than they used to be. Diesel electric are more quiet. The Swedish produce a sub that is setting new standards.
Zac is correct though, we don't have subs, likely never will. The Aussies do have the Collins class guided missile sub. They're somewhat troubled but still capable. If the Aussies had been on the ball, at least one of these would have been shadowing the ships. With guided missiles they could do it from quite some distance, even beyond torpedo range.
None of this will be of any use, however, in a nation divided against itself. A population composed of mutually antagonistic cultures and identities; a country racked by ideological differences and beset by conflicts made all the more intractable by the demonisation of every side except one’s own, cannot possibly achieve the consensus needed to construct an effective national defence.
I often get the impression from Trotter's writings that he would like New Zealand to develop into a quasi-fascist state. No ideological differences?
We already know our place in the world and that is firmly within the Western world and more specifically the Anglosphere. Where they go, we go, their fate will be our fate.
I don't agree with everything he says however I will say that CT's entire life work that I've been reading for >30 years has come from a historical class Left & basically decent humanist orientation. In recent years he's provided a perspective that's put him offside with the current Left, no bad thing. Elon Musk on X: "https://t.co/Q9OjlJhi7f" / X
I fail to see anything remotely suggesting that " he would like New Zealand to develop into a quasi-fascist state" in your quote. To the contrary, he frequently refers to the lessons of history.
The best way to deal with bullies is to ignore them competely, they just want attention because their Daddies didn't love them. If they physically cause you or your family any harm though, smash their face in immediately with a cricket bat. There's one for the Chinese sleepers that lurk on this site.
You are somewhat contradicting your earlier comment but given the chaotic and unprecedented policies that the Trump administration have undertaken that is pretty much understandable. Even so it would appear NZ would still be advisable to remain with the tried and tested as a matter of Hobson’s choice. Thus a simple question.Would it be preferable to live under the regimes of London/Washington or that of Moscow/Beijing.
It's always encouraging to see nations taking an interest in the Tasman, though you'd hope that they'd familiarise themselves with the etiquette of the region before making a spectacle. Live-fire drills are more in keeping with insecure nations seeking attention than those confident in their place among responsible maritime actors.
A quiet word beforehand with regional partners would have been the proper thing to do - we should assume this was simply an oversight on the part of an inexperienced commander, rather than a deliberate lapse in decorum. No doubt as their navy matures, with time and experience they will come to appreciate the value of courtesy in such matters.
From the 3rd Scroll.
New Zealand gets invaded by Foreign Soldiers with Black Hair. Foreign soldiers come ashore on small boats. This happens on the East Coast between North Auckland and Whangarei. It will be in broad daylight during swimming months while beachgoers are active.
https://www.interest.co.nz/economy/131907/us-ppi-stays-high-us-househol…
Australia should start planning for acquisition of at least 12 submarines of the French Suffren design. The current AUKUS plan for eight nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) has always been flawed, and now its risks are piling up.
We should go ahead with naval-operational aspects of the AUKUS SSN plan, such as supporting US and British submarines when they come to Australia. But for the acquisition effort, we should be ready to drop the plan to buy eight SSNs under AUKUS—three from the US that Washington is increasingly unlikely to supply, and five that are supposed to be built to an oversized British design and probably can’t arrive on time.
Instead, we would commence a joint Franco-Australian construction program for a greater number of submarines of the Suffren class, a design that is already in service with the French navy.
To ensure deliveries could begin as early as 2038, the Australian government that’s elected next year should commit to deciding in 2026 whether to switch to the French design.
Even if the AUKUS acquisition plan succeeds, it will deliver a questionable capability. The submarines’ designs would be a mix of two blocks of Virginia-class submarines, more than 14 years apart in design, and yet-to-be-designed SSN-AUKUS using Britain’s yet-to-be-tested PWR3 reactor. Moreover, SSN-AUKUS would be partly built by the underperforming British submarine enterprise that’s under great pressure to deliver the Royal Navy’s next class of ballistic missile submarines.
Displacing more than 10,000 tonnes, SSN-AUKUS submarines will be too big for Australia’s needs. Their size will increase their detectability, cost and crews. (The large size appears to be driven by the dimensions of the reactor.)
The Royal Australian Navy is already unable to crew its ships and grow to meet future demands. It will have great difficulty in crewing Virginias, which need 132 people each, and SSN-AUKUS boats, too, if their crews equal the 100-odd needed for the current British Astute class.
We have yet to see a schedule for the British design process, nor does a joint design team seem to have been established. In the absence of news that milestones have been achieved or even set, it is highly likely that the SSN-AUKUS program, like the Astute program, will run late and deliver a first-of-class boat with many problems. Knowing that Britain’s Strategic Defence Review is grappling with serious funding shortfalls hardly instils confidence.
Also, eight SSNs will be enough to maintain deployment of only one or two at any time, not enough for an effective deterrent. The difficulty in training crews and building up experience in three designs of submarines would add to the obvious supply chain challenges in achieving an operational force.
Achieving even this inadequate capability is growing less likely. Reports at the recent US Navy Submarine League Symposium reveal continuing US failure to increase submarine building rates. By now an additional submarine should have been ordered to cover the transfer of an existing Block IV Virginia to Australia in eight years, but no contract has been placed. Worse, Virginia production at both US submarine shipbuilders is actually slowing due to supply chain delays. The US’s top priority shipbuilding program, for Columbia class ballistic-missile submarines, continues to suffer delays. In late November, the White House requested emergency funding from Congress for the Virginia and Columbia programs.
This situation flags an increasing likelihood that, despite its best efforts, the US Navy will be unable to spare any Virginias for sale to Australia. The president of the day probably will be unable, as legislation requires, to certify 270 days before the transfer it will not degrade US undersea capabilities.
Meanwhile, Britain’s submarine support establishment is having difficulties in getting SSNs to sea. A recent fire affecting the delivery of the final Astute class SSN can only add to these woes.
The French Suffren SSN class was the reference design for the diesel Attack class that Australia intended to buy before switching to SSNs. It offers the solution to our AUKUS problems. It is in production by Naval Group, with three of the planned six submarines commissioned in the French navy.
At 5300 tonnes and with a 70-day endurance, capacity for 24 torpedoes or missiles, four torpedo tubes and a crew of 60, it would be cheaper to build, own and crew than the AUKUS boats. The design is flexible—optimised for anti-submarine warfare but with a good anti-surface ship capability from dual-purpose torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles. It can also carry land-attack cruise missiles, mines and special forces.
The Suffren class uses low-enriched uranium fuel and needs refuelling every 10 years, whereas the US and British designs, with highly enriched uranium, are intended never to be refuelled. But the Suffren reactor is designed to simplify refuelling, which could be completed during a scheduled refit in Australia. Used fuel can be reprocessed, simplifying decommissioning at the end of life.
True, the Suffren design does not have the weapon load, vertical launch missile tubes or 90-day endurance of the Virginia and, presumably, SSN-AUKUS. However, as a nuclear-powered relative of the Attack class it is much closer to the original Australian requirement for a replacement for the Collins class than SSN-AUKUS is shaping up to be. The design offers adequate capability for Australia’s needs in a package we can afford to own. We could operate 12 Suffrens and still need fewer crew members than we would under the AUKUS plan.
If we shifted to the Suffren design, we should nonetheless stick with the SSN training programs we’ve arranged with the US Navy and Royal Navy. We should also go ahead with establishing an intermediate repair facility that would support their SSNs as well as ours and with rotating them through Western Australia.
As for the AUKUS acquisition plan, we need to begin preparations now for jointly building Suffrens with France. Australia cannot wait for the US to finally say Virginias will be unavailable.
To the extent that design needs changing, we can go back to the work done for the Attack class, particularly incorporation of a US combat system and Australian standards.
Difficult, challenging and politically courageous? Surely. But not nearly as improbable getting SSNs under AUKUS on time.
We’re a democracy. Halting anything on consensus means never doing it.
We still have a rather strong common ideological bond with one another. Granted we may not realise it until we are faced with an “other” who advocates against our common values, but fundamentally kiwis are liberal. We care about a sense of fairness, we care about the country doing well, and we’re cautious of centralised power in government (even if only when “the other guys” are in).
Right now we’re starting to turn on each other out of desperation. Because everyone can feel that their lives are getting worse.
I would argue that historically defence spending has been one of the most persuasive causes for taking from the rich to pay the poor. I would also argue that, so long as the majority of this spending is kept within the country and funded through taxation of the wealthy, that it would greatly improve social cohesion.
Consensus would come after the fact when people feel their lives improving.
It all goes back to wealth inequality.
SKF
Any message, such as it is, is surely aimed at the US, via Australia.
NZ is not in any way a threat - we're simply too small.
The only strategic value NZ holds is a) proximity to Australia, b) proximity to Antarctica, c) food production.
There's a reason everyone's building nuclear hideout bunkers around Queenstown, and that's because it's very unlikely NZ would even be targeted by a nuclear weapon - our value as a base for a) or b) would be vastly diminished and c) would be wiped out.
In all likelihood, any enemy commander with any IQ would simply send forces to invade/capture AKL/WLG/CHC - the ports primarily - and control from there.
Our defence forces have some strong and very well trained units - particularly the SAS for example - but ultimately even these would be relegated to guerilla warfare with the lack of Naval or Air support. There simply isn't enough investment - even if tripled/quadrupled from current levels to provide a sufficient deterrent.
If our ports were captured by enemy forces, re-capturing (and more importantly holding) them would be impossible - this is doubly so if - as would seem likely - such a naval invasion were supported by an aircraft carrier providing air support from offshore.
I mean, were even one of the Chinese warships currently in the Tasman to decide to go sit in Wellington harbour for a while - do you really think NZ would be able to do anything about it?
Previous commenters were 100% correct, we are reliant on Australian/US submarines to provide defense and projected deterrent against such an attack, and primarily US intelligence to advise on such a flotilla heading in our direction (and frankly being honest, this is only provided due to our proximity to Australia not because we're particularly important - strategically).
Any message, such as it is, is surely aimed at the US, via Australia.
NZ is not in any way a threat - we're simply too small.
Of course we're not a threat, we're the bounty. The exact reason that makes us appealing to multi-billionaire bunker builders makes us appealing to elites in other countries. You think if things go to shit the Chinese Elite are going to stay in China, they will be heading to the best places to hide out from the climate change consequences and subsequent societal collapse. They will have plenty of firepower to easily overpower and take over little old NZ and it's indigenous (by that I mean current) population.
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.