I’ve mentioned this a number of times previously but please, please NZDF get some surveillance resources, whether sea, air or both up to your Pacific protectorates, the CCP has shown its hand, respond!
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Highly unlikely with the current government, who prior to them coming to power for their first term were talking of reducing the $20B for capital and even though NZ first stopped that, they have taken a go slow approach since the last election. Pollies don't like to admit that the have to change their thinking, so for them to move on defence will take a long time as they slowly change. The best bet will be a change of government, because this government will think that if they are nice to everyone they won't have to do anything.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
‘We don’t need to be reactive’: New Zealand keeps faith in its foreign policy amid China Pacific push
Foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta accepts China has become more assertive in the region but says approach will remain essentially unchanged
www.theguardian.com
Highlights:
And there Ladies and gents, is NZs position. All this stuff from Arderns White House visit is the status quo, but with better PR for those of a more hawkish outlook.
Actions matter, not words, and there is no action from the current NZ government.
Should we expect more from the opposition should they gain the treasury benches? Based on history, I fear not, but events may prove me wrong.
There you have it this current govt has no intention of upgrading the navy,airforce or army with any major equipement purchases, increases in airframe numbers etc.‘We don’t need to be reactive’: New Zealand keeps faith in its foreign policy amid China Pacific push
Foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta accepts China has become more assertive in the region but says approach will remain essentially unchanged
Highlights:
And there Ladies and gents, is NZs position. All this stuff from Arderns White House visit is the status quo, but with better PR for those of a more hawkish outlook.
Actions matter, not words, and there is no action from the current NZ government.
Should we expect more from the opposition should they gain the treasury benches? Based on history, I fear not, but events may prove me wrong.
The MIA defence minister is utterly useless!, and a minister of finance who I suspect is refusing to fund anything defence related! meddling in something he is clueless about!! like just about all NZ politicians!! and I don't think National will be much better without the ACT party pushing them into increasing the defence budget.
They have a complete "amatuer" of a Foreign minister who is just plain not interested outside of her pet project "3 waters" while in government, one can only hope when it comes to election time labour are dumped out of office!
NZ should have sent at least an orion up to the islands on "fisheries patrol" but I suspect that due to the age and reduced fleet numbers they are struggling with current outputs.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Be careful when dealing with ACTs talk of an increased defence budget, is it yet to be proven that have any intention of substantive improvements or that they even know what they are talking about. Going by their website them saying more money for defence is could be a pay and conditions improvement , a couples of extra P8s and SSMs for the Frigates at best, or at worst an intention to bludge whilst doing more operations while mouthing platitudes.
Last edited:
Yes what you say is true with ACT but it may just give that little push/nudge that the National party needs.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Maybe.. but here the question is, a push to do what? Their history on defence related matters is not stellar, moreso when you cannot find any policy statements from them on defence.
Party Policies - Defence and Security - Defence
Election 2020 - Party Policies - Defence and Security - Defence
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
What sort of actions are needed in your opinion Stuart?
Put it this way, what exactly are the "problems" or issues that need addressing, how are they to be addressed and from when?
And with who? Does NZ address the problems itself, or after consultation with Australia, or after consultation with other strategic partners such as the US?
Asking as you seem to be repeating yourself saying "NZ is doing nothing". Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've heard about about anyone else announcing anything new to be done as of yet? Perhaps it takes time for assessments and international consultation? Perhaps NZ is waiting for the US to shape its diplomatic (and/or any military) responses?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Talking about potential US diplomatic responses, here are some thoughts from "Foreign Affairs" (which is paywalled, but this other site has reproduced the article in full). It's obviously the ideas of an analyst, but who has linkages to the US State Department (and not necessarily the current US Govt's), but it seems pretty straight forward and sensible to me. It even seems to align mostly with what NZ has been saying diplomatically over the last few years (probably Aust. too for all we know).
(There is no military response, presumably that's secret and/or yet to be fully formulated ... not unlike NZ)?
www.almendron.com
(There is no military response, presumably that's secret and/or yet to be fully formulated ... not unlike NZ)?
A Fault Line in the Pacific
The last time most Americans paid attention to the Solomon Islands was in the middle of World War II, when the United States and Japan waged a prolonged naval battle in the waters and skies surroun…
www.almendron.com
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Lol, why ask me? I'm just pointing out what should be obvious, that nothings changed, but if you want change an action must happen.
My opinion on what should happen has exactly zero value as I'm neither in/was in the armed forces, politics nor a public figure of any standing that it would be worth a damn. And I can't be bothered unwittingly running foul of some rule or be bothered anymore getting into some damn fool argument on the internet.
Tbh, I'm not sure I follow you here, that's a government policy matter, there's zero point asking me, it's not like the minister hangs on my every word.
If I'm repeating my self it's because there have been a lot of posts here on a theme that NZs nailed it's colours to the western mast, when nothing of the sort has happened. What has happened is a bit of government PR to placate the hawkish, and it that shouldn't fool anyone.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Asking you Stu because your input and historical observations is appreciated! Was wondering what else you had in mind that's all. In your post 7149 on the previous page you did briefly outline some hardware examples that should be fast-tracked, I fully agree. Without delving too much into politics and falling foul of forum rules my view is we are unlucky (at this critical juncture) to have the most inexperienced, inward focused Govt in power probably in our entire history. But we have to deal with the cards we have and they are having to step up. They may lack strength in the "hawkish" department, but they have some strengths in the person to person engagement department (which is paying off).
In terms of your second point, I believe it is important that we here on the forum do express our thoughts. Sure not so much "fantasy fleets" (of which plead guilty), but to assist with social discourse. I'll give one example, I've noticed that NZ defence analysts and commentators tend to be rather "conservative" in their force structure discussions (unlike say a wide, wide range of Australian analysts and commentators), if anything they seem to spend most of their time analysing what a Govt has done rather than what it needs to do. So the status quo discussions revolve around a two Frigate Navy, a stretched Army and definitely no advocating for an ACF etc. However in the last couple of years one or two defence analysts (& former DefMin Wayne Mapp IIRC) started advocating for a third Frigate but their primary reason was to (correctly) allow the RNZN to sustain a deployment properly.
But where is their analysis on expanding the naval combat force to now face growing threats? For example, do we need 4 Frigates again? Or 6 like in the 1950's/60's to cover our large AO? Or do we need a mixed fleet eg two or three ANZAC's/their replacements for full interoperability when operating in the wider Indo-Pacific, and perhaps two or three or four Type 31/Arrowhead 140's for operating primarily in the South Pacific and trans-tasman merchant escorting etc? Or do we need less combat type vessels and more OPV's for use in the South Pacific, if so should some be further strengthened to deal with being rammed by other's belligerent "coast guard" vessels? Bearing in mind all of this takes time to have vessels built so is recruiting stepping up to bring personnel through the system, do we need to lease vessels in due course to give these personnel time at sea? And so on for any other capability within the NZDF.
So what sort of expenditure is required? 2% of GDP won't be enough, mind you if 2% was a Cold War level (where the "fighting" was to far away from our shores, what sort of expenditure would be required nowadays if "fighting" is coming closer to our shores and those of our neighbours and when we are dealing with a nation that is on effectively on par with the US in terms of technology and strength of their armed forces? 2.5-3%? But even if it were, it wouldn't rise to that level overnight it would take time, especially as other considerations need to be factored in (eg personnel recruited, trained and retained, and supporting infrastructure built). Sorry I didn't mean to delve into "fantasy expenditures", I'm merely acknowledging that if one proposes new capabilities they will have to be funded somehow and there needs to be a reason to do so!
In terms of your last point, I'm not clear on the "hawkish" bits, perhaps you mean NM's posts where he quotes the Biden/Ardern "US - Aotearoa NZ Joint Statement" from last week? TBH I hadn't read the statement in its entirety until now but the language used does talk about greater defence co-operation (which has seen the NZ (far) Left squealing), for example:
Frankly if I were the US/Australia/NZ I would be advocating for a new defence treaty (of sorts) with the South Pacific eg include them (particularly those with armed forces eg Fiji, PNG and Tonga, but also working with the maritime Police units of the remaining islands etc), primarily concentrating on maritime domain awareness and response. It's not "ANZUS lite" (that's a separate treaty, aimed at the "higher end"), for any US/A/NZ/SP treaty would work within the freamwork of the "South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty" (of which the US is actually a signatory, I'm not proposing anything new or at odds with US policy here). As it fits in within maritime domain awareness and response, essentially what we are talking about is sea, air and satellite surveillance (with an armed response provision) and personnel undergoing training in partnership with the US/Aust/NZ (and possibly Japan, France, UK etc)? It means mainly IPV/OPV type assets and basing, and short-medium range air patrol aircraft and basing. (Backed up by naval and air combat assets should the need arise, so these are mainly in the background i.e. may make an occasional appearance during say important exercises and the like). Anyway just some random thoughts!
In terms of your second point, I believe it is important that we here on the forum do express our thoughts. Sure not so much "fantasy fleets" (of which plead guilty), but to assist with social discourse. I'll give one example, I've noticed that NZ defence analysts and commentators tend to be rather "conservative" in their force structure discussions (unlike say a wide, wide range of Australian analysts and commentators), if anything they seem to spend most of their time analysing what a Govt has done rather than what it needs to do. So the status quo discussions revolve around a two Frigate Navy, a stretched Army and definitely no advocating for an ACF etc. However in the last couple of years one or two defence analysts (& former DefMin Wayne Mapp IIRC) started advocating for a third Frigate but their primary reason was to (correctly) allow the RNZN to sustain a deployment properly.
But where is their analysis on expanding the naval combat force to now face growing threats? For example, do we need 4 Frigates again? Or 6 like in the 1950's/60's to cover our large AO? Or do we need a mixed fleet eg two or three ANZAC's/their replacements for full interoperability when operating in the wider Indo-Pacific, and perhaps two or three or four Type 31/Arrowhead 140's for operating primarily in the South Pacific and trans-tasman merchant escorting etc? Or do we need less combat type vessels and more OPV's for use in the South Pacific, if so should some be further strengthened to deal with being rammed by other's belligerent "coast guard" vessels? Bearing in mind all of this takes time to have vessels built so is recruiting stepping up to bring personnel through the system, do we need to lease vessels in due course to give these personnel time at sea? And so on for any other capability within the NZDF.
So what sort of expenditure is required? 2% of GDP won't be enough, mind you if 2% was a Cold War level (where the "fighting" was to far away from our shores, what sort of expenditure would be required nowadays if "fighting" is coming closer to our shores and those of our neighbours and when we are dealing with a nation that is on effectively on par with the US in terms of technology and strength of their armed forces? 2.5-3%? But even if it were, it wouldn't rise to that level overnight it would take time, especially as other considerations need to be factored in (eg personnel recruited, trained and retained, and supporting infrastructure built). Sorry I didn't mean to delve into "fantasy expenditures", I'm merely acknowledging that if one proposes new capabilities they will have to be funded somehow and there needs to be a reason to do so!
In terms of your last point, I'm not clear on the "hawkish" bits, perhaps you mean NM's posts where he quotes the Biden/Ardern "US - Aotearoa NZ Joint Statement" from last week? TBH I hadn't read the statement in its entirety until now but the language used does talk about greater defence co-operation (which has seen the NZ (far) Left squealing), for example:
We'll have to see what future NZG commits to this.
Frankly if I were the US/Australia/NZ I would be advocating for a new defence treaty (of sorts) with the South Pacific eg include them (particularly those with armed forces eg Fiji, PNG and Tonga, but also working with the maritime Police units of the remaining islands etc), primarily concentrating on maritime domain awareness and response. It's not "ANZUS lite" (that's a separate treaty, aimed at the "higher end"), for any US/A/NZ/SP treaty would work within the freamwork of the "South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty" (of which the US is actually a signatory, I'm not proposing anything new or at odds with US policy here). As it fits in within maritime domain awareness and response, essentially what we are talking about is sea, air and satellite surveillance (with an armed response provision) and personnel undergoing training in partnership with the US/Aust/NZ (and possibly Japan, France, UK etc)? It means mainly IPV/OPV type assets and basing, and short-medium range air patrol aircraft and basing. (Backed up by naval and air combat assets should the need arise, so these are mainly in the background i.e. may make an occasional appearance during say important exercises and the like). Anyway just some random thoughts!
Never fear, people! Our erstwhile* intrepid Defence Minister is off to the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore for one-to-one consultations, and then to a wreath-laying ceremony in South Korea (link). This has to be one of the grossest misuses of the taxpayer's money ever (much like the salary Mr Henare has been drawing for the last 2 years to be honest, in my opinion). I don't think you've earned the right to go Mr Henare. Hopefully, they are not giving him a speaking slot (that would be politically embarrassing, the guy couldn't even answer the one non-patsy question he got in our parliament this year - link). By my reckoning the only new capability work he's initiated during his tenure is the paltry $21m comms upgrade on the navy vessels, and he's pretty well failed on all 3 of his priorities (people, infrastructure, the pacific). A decent defence minister should be able to get at least one major capability project over the line in a 3-year term. Some of those projects that were in the pipeline have been indefinitely deferred (SOPV), and some have just vanished into thin air (EMAC, future maritime helicopter, strategic air mobility).
* apparently erstwhile means former (one can but hope!)
* apparently erstwhile means former (one can but hope!)
Last edited:
@chis73 What else do you expect from him? He's very underwhelming and we all know that. Everybody's favourite former PM is wading into the debate now, Helen Clark warns Ardern not to blindly follow others on foreign policy | Politik sticking her oar into the mix.
Since Ardern is Clark's protégé she will listen to Clark and that also begs the question of how much influence Clark is having in the current government's foreign and defence policy.
"POLITIK understands in what is likely to be seen by China as a further provocation that the Prime Minister will attend the NATO summit in Madrid at the end of this month. But former Prime Minister Helen Clark is also subtly reminding the Government that New Zealand’s foreign policy has been built on the balance between China and the US. Clark told POLITIK she thought great care had to be taken with the use of language and with managing perceptions with respect to New Zealand’s relationship with both China and the United States. “It is a question of being able to express NZ’s western and democratic values and also maintain a broad basket of economic and other relationships,” she said. And she raised a subtle question about Ardern’s presence at the NATO summit.
... Clark also attended a NATO summit, but she emphasised that her interest was solely in New Zealand’s participation in the military actions in Afghanistan. And she indicated that Ardern should focus only on Ukraine at this year’s summit.
... her comments to POLITIK sound like a warning to the current Government. “The key issue in maintaining the substance and perception of NZ foreign policy will be to ensure that NZ is making its own decisions based on its own values and interests and not blindly following others,” she said."
Since Ardern is Clark's protégé she will listen to Clark and that also begs the question of how much influence Clark is having in the current government's foreign and defence policy.
You won't want to admit it but Clark is somewhat correct, economically China is far more important to NZ than the US. The value of trade with China is larger than our next 5 largest trading partners combined. If China stopped trade with us it would be like the UK entering the EEC and kicking us to the curb all over again, you're old enough to know how devastating that was.
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
I have to disagree with the comment that economically China is far more important than the US. I agree it is important and we should work with them. China is our largest single export destination but the added value of these goods is low. Our trade with China will not continue to grow as it has done since the FTA was signed, we are already at max milk production. Zespri sales are in danger.
The economic value of the USA to NZ is higher. Report: The NZ-US trade relationship - stability and diversity in a time of change - NZUS Council. While our level of goods traded is lower the level of FDI is similar. The trade with the US is higher in the Services sector.
The USA is a provider of technology which is a large enabler of our current economy(approx $6B) and that will support future growth, I am referring to the datacentres Azure and AWS. Also the announcement from the PM on partnerships with Azure i.e. it will be easier for us to sell our digital services through USA platforms. These will be a large source of economic growth. I will throw RocketLab in the mix as well.
We should also remember that the value of our trade with our western friends (Aus, UK, USA, Japan, S Korea, $30B) is of more value than our trade with China ($21.6B). New Zealand Trade Dashboard. This is not a simple black and white question and answer, it is complex. Our export trade with the USA and Aus is at the same value China.
I would like to touch on the scenario of China putting constraints on buying our milk products, our largest single product group. All that would happen is that China would buy their milk from someone else. Fonterra is the largest international supplier of milk products, they would just sell their milk to the countries customers who replaced our milk in China. It is not that easy to increase milk production, it takes time and large investments.
I do think that China could cause us significant economic discomfort, but it would not be the end of the world, we would adjust.
Of note is that we do let China know what would make us uncomfortable and they consistently ignore us, we have tried very hard to support them and work with them.
Last edited:
It's no longer about economics but regional and national security now. There are also indications that the PRC economy is going to take a nose dive because of the CCP Politburo Standing Committee retention of their Zero COVID-19 policy. Unlike here, Australia or in Europe the CCP policy is draconian and it's having massive impacts on city and regional economies because whole areas are shut down. No one goes to work. In cities like Shanghai the port is shut and it's the largest port in the world, from memory. Beijing is in the process of being locked down. There have been reports that farmers will be unable to undertake anywhere near the full harvest because of the lack of labour due to lockdowns, so the PRC will be facing a food shortage in a world that is already facing a food shortage because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So how's the PRC going to meet its shortfall which will be significant. It does have grain storage for such an event, but a lot of that is useless because of corrupt CCP officials selling off the good stuff illegally and what's left is rubbish and has in cases gone mouldy. Corruption is a huge problem within the CCP and the factional fighting to the death between the Jiang and Xi factions isn't helping either.
So the CCP has massive problems with the economy bought about by the factional fighting. Xi is hitting the Jiang faction where it hurts by going after all their assets and businesses, not only of the Jiang family but of their associates, the lot. That's what has caused the real estate crash in the PRC. Xi has issued a directive that all businesses, including foreign owned businesses in the PRC are to have active CCP cells within them. That and other controls and difficulties have caused many foreign businesses such as Panasonic, Sony, Samsung etc., to exit the PRC and set up elsewhere. Vietnam appears to be doing well out of this move. Xi has slapped a foreign exchange prohibition on PRC nationals, allegedly because of dwindling FOREX reserves. If that is the case how are they going to pay for NZ goods? Also PRC nationals are being stopped at the border when leaving and questioned as to their reason for travelling. If it is personal for holiday, or education at a non university institute, their passport is cut there and then and they are turned back. If its for business it has to be worthwhile or again their passport is cut and they are turned back. Within the PRC people who hold current passports have been told to return them and the passports are cut. New passport applications are accepted but the approval rate is very low.
Therefore NZ will not see the return of PRC tourists or students, except those students enrolled in approved university courses. We will also most like face a downturn in exports because the PRC may have difficulty paying for them in the near future. The period between now and the 20th Party Congress in November will be an interesting (for outsiders), eventful, and dangerous time for those in the two factions, specially Xi Jinping and Jiang Zemin and their immediate families. To the victor - the spoils; to the loser and his immediate family - an appointment with the executioner because this faction fight has gone far beyond the norm with assassination attempts on Xi and the Jiang faction using the western media to plant stories about Xi; and Xi wrecking the PRC economy to destroy Jiang and his faction.
Some sources:
Chinese General Caught with a ton of Cash.
11 Million College Graduates Enter Job Market; PhD Competing for Street Order Officer Position
What caused China’s real estate bubble and the local government debt crisis?
Using Fonterra as an example most dairy markets have quotas, it won't be easy to shift Fonterra sales from China to elsewhere, we have limited market access to the EU, UK, and USA. I don't see the US stepping up and taking the products we formally sold to China, do you? We sell 7.5b in dairy to China, only 500m to the US, 50m to the UK, EU 180m, those markets will not buy the missing 7b. The US don't care about us anymore than China does so why should we put out eggs in the US's basket and follow along behind them?
Clark is absolutely correct when she said "The key issue in maintaining the substance and perception of NZ foreign policy will be to ensure that NZ is making its own decisions based on its own values and interests and not blindly following others,"
Clark is absolutely correct when she said "The key issue in maintaining the substance and perception of NZ foreign policy will be to ensure that NZ is making its own decisions based on its own values and interests and not blindly following others,"
And what good will that do us in the event of hostilities? We no longer live in a benign strategic environment at all and the CCP/PRC isn't a benign power. It's own history illustrates that. You may be anti-American but don't let that cloud your judgement. Unlike you I have studied the CCP & PRC for quite a while. I started studying China, it's history, culture and geography during my first year at university in 1989. That happened to be the time of the Tiananmen Square Massacre when Deng Xiaoping ordered the PLA-GF in to end the student protest. He was a hardliner and his reforms were only economic, never political. Many in the west who should have known better were fools thinking that the Deng's economic reforms would lead to political reforms. Those fools and newer fools still think it today. Here's an article on the Tiananmen Square Massacre The Tiananmen Papers | Foreign Affairs and from what I understand it's a reasonable account.
I would add one think to the discussion, and that is since we are special NATO partners along with Australia, South Korea and Japan, we should be forming security agreements with both South Korea and Japan. I would also add Singapore to the mix, even though it isn't involved with NATO.
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
The EU, UK and USA are not the largest markets for the main Fonterra product which is whole milk powder, butter and cheese are a lot smaller. I am thinking of other regions such as SE Asia, where we have a FTA, Middle East, S America and Africa. The way this would work is.
The world makes 100 units of milk products, 40 are from NZ, 40 from Eu and 20 from USA and 10 from other countries. If China stops buying 5 of our units they have to buy the 5 from someone else, let's say Europe. Europe can not just increase their production by that amount quickly, it will take years. So there are now 5 units of demand not being met in other countries, Fonterra would then sell to these countries. We need to remember that Fonterra is the biggest dairy trader in the world. The best way to think about Fonterra is in a similar way to an Oil company.
I agree we should not put all our eggs in one basket we need to be diverse. But on the flip side, China is doing things which are creating instability, this is the problem. Just look at how they have acted in the South China sea, they have ignored international law and used might to steal other countries' resources. They are now moving down to the Pacific and from there to Antarctica. Are we prepared to give up our interests and access to resources? If they are not stopped now, then what sort of world order will we be living in. We need to align with other countries who are like-minded to encourage China to rethink how they are approaching others, this is not about wanting to fight but as a small country we can not support might makes right. This is why we need the help of a big friend like the USA and NATO partners, it is not a matter of NZ following the USA it is a matter of NZ asking the USA to help us. This is what is lost on many, we do have interests in the world and often they are similar to those of the USA. I agree with Clark, perception matters and I am sure we have told China that the way they are operating is making us feel nervous. They have not listened so we have responded by moving closer to the USA.
@Gracie1234 You might want to do your sums again. They don't add up and even the Aussies can count that high without taking their shoes and sock off. You're letting the side down
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
