Just wishing to tack back to defence policy and in the wider context seeing we have an election coming up (and following on from Todjaegers posts to provoke some thinking), a web search brought up this article from 31 July 2003 by the former Secretary of Defence Gerald Hensley and various other former defence chiefs. Their viewpoints are still relevent imo.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3515364
A well as verything else that was written, note the last paragraph in the above link. I wish we could have some defence equivalent to the "Police Association" as the top brass & servicemen/women are forbidden to put their views out into the public and debate is therefore one sided in favour of the govt of the day and/or other politicians. No wonder the public are uninformed. The media, despite their sometimes sensationalism, are really the only other means to keep the pollies honest at times.
This astonishes the defence players' more feisty brethren across the Tasman. Australian efforts to get a Kiwi version of that country's powerful defence association started here foundered when its proponents ran up against that most unmilitary characteristic: fear.
I hadn't actually read their green paper "Choice or Chance? New Zealanders thinking about Defence Policy." but managed to track it down on the web. It's very interesting and worth posting here in its entirety, except it is too long.
EDIT: For continuity, here's the report in sequence up "Can we make a difference?".
Note: the full article is at the link
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0207/S00033.htm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Choice Or Chance? - NZers Thinking About Defence
Wednesday, 3 July 2002, 11:59 am
Press Release:
CHOICE OR CHANCE?
New Zealanders Thinking About Defence Policy
Published in June 2002 by
M E A Dillon
1/30 The Crescent
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
in association with the authors
and with special acknowledgement to the assistance
provided by
The Save Our Squadrons Campaign
The Maxim Institute
The Wellington Brevet Club
And friends and ex-colleagues
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ISBN 0-473-08732-4
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION 1
DO WE NEED A DEFENCE FORCE? 3
:::::::::Couldn't We Be Neutral?
:::::::::Can't It Be Left To Our Friends?
:::::::::Can We Make A Difference?
:::::::::A Choice Has To Be Made
::::::::
redictions Are Fallible
WHAT KIND OF DEFENCE DO WE NEED? 9
:::::::::Close To Home
::::::::
eacekeeping
:::::::::Should A Small Country Specialise?
:::::::::A Balanced Approach
:::::::::The Army
:::::::::The Navy
:::::::::The Air Force
:::::::::Summary
HOW CAN WE AFFORD THIS? 19
CONCLUSION 21
FOREWORD
In the modern world any country's defence is a mix of three tasks: to defend the homeland, to work with others to protect its wider interests, and to help maintain peace and the rule of law in the international community.
New Zealand has quietly dropped the second of these tasks without debating the effects. We have allowed our Defence Force to run down to the point where we can no longer contribute reliably to collective security.
We need to ask ourselves why. The answer will decide what sort of security we will have for the future, and what sort of relationship we will have with friends like Australia and the United States.
The first question is, Who is out of step? Every other country in the Asia-Pacific region believes that the risk of serious trouble sometime in the future cannot be ruled out. They know that trouble can now arise faster than the capability to deal with it, and that it is too late to wait until the danger becomes clear. They have accepted the necessity, year on year, to maintain forces trained and equipped to deal with such trouble.
We are marching firmly in the opposite direction. We have halved our defence spending, now projected to fall well below 1% of our national income. A worthwhile combat capability cannot be sustained on this. We have decided instead to concentrate on domestic tasks and peacekeeping.
These views cannot both be right. Either our friends are wrong, or we are.
The second question is, Can we stay out of harm's way? If the others turn out to be right about the future, can we not, as a small country in the depths of the Pacific, sit on the sidelines? Our present stance relies on this hope. In its Policy Statement two years ago the government says simply that "New Zealand is not likely to be involved in widespread armed conflict". It gives no reasons to back this optimism. We need to think about it carefully. If it turned out to be wrong we would find ourselves yet again fielding forces that were not properly trained or equipped.
The most basic question of all is, How do we see the future? All arguments on defence turn on this. If we are confident that there is no risk of trouble over the next two decades, or that it could not affect New Zealand, then we can settle for a defence force mainly equipped for iii non-combat duties and international policing. If we think the future is uncertain and that we cannot afford to gamble, then we will prefer a defence force that can work with our friends to uphold the collective security of all of us.
We have to make a conscious choice. We cannot drift along hoping that our insurance policy is valid even though we have stopped paying the premiums.
There is a last question, Can we afford it? We are told that the cost is too high, that modern defence equipment is beyond our means. Better (we have said beneath our breath) to leave it to other countries' taxpayers. But huge sums are not required for a credible defence preparedness and the friendships it helps to sustain. Provided we do it consistently, the equivalent of an extra five days of welfare spending each year would be enough.
Whatever we decide, we need a frank debate on whether we are headed in the right direction. Green papers are normally consultation documents put out by governments before deciding on policy. Our government has so far carried out no consultations and issued no White Paper. This ‘green paper’ is an informal attempt to set out some of the main issues as a contribution to a fuller discussion.
We will be attacked for being ‘political’, as if such subjects are for politicians only. But defence, the country's future security, is a political issue of the highest importance. If the government will not talk about it, then private citizens have to try to fill the gap.
Since we raised these issues a year ago we have sadly lost a member of our group - Lieutenant-General Tony Birks. His clear mind and cheerfulness in the midst of illness were a source of great strength. Many of his thoughts have helped shape these pages.
We dedicate this green paper to his memory.
Richard Bolt Gerald Hensley Ewan Jamieson
Robin Klitscher Denis McLean Somerford Teagle
CHOICE OR CHANCE?
INTRODUCTION
After a decade of running down our defence capabilities, New Zealanders now need to pause and think about where we are heading and whether the path we are on is wise. The defence debate is not about detail, or even primarily about money. It should be about what, if any, risks we see to our future peace and prosperity and what is needed to reduce those risks to an acceptable level.
The decision concerns all of us because if we get it wrong the damage will affect all of us. Defence experts can best advise about types of equipment or the best training needed for specified tasks. Only we as ordinary New Zealanders can choose the risks we are willing to run on security.
If we are confident that there is no risk of conflict over the next two decades, or at least that any conflict will not affect New Zealand, then we can settle for a defence force which is equipped mainly for non-combat duties, such as (to quote from the Government's last election manifesto) "disaster relief, resource protection, suitable overseas aid delivery, such as engineering and health projects, and to United Nations peacekeeping or non-military peace support".
If we decide, on the other hand, that the world faces an uncertain future and that New Zealand will not be exempted from any consequences, then we will call for a different kind of defence force - one which can do all these things in peacetime, but which is also equipped and trained for combat. This means a defence force which can give credibility to our diplomacy and which can work with our friends to deter or resist trouble.
The two alternatives are very different, in equipment, cost and purpose.
As insurance policies for New Zealand each covers a quite different level of risk. Since we will live with the consequences of our choice we need to be clear and well-informed about what is involved in each. Too much is at stake in the future if we get it wrong.
This is a 'green paper', traditionally used by governments to set out issues for discussion. Our government has not done so on defence and so we have attempted to fill the gap. We believe that New Zealand needs an effective defence force, but we have tried to set out the reasons in a way that lets readers judge for themselves.
DO WE NEED A DEFENCE FORCE?
The Asia-Pacific region in which we live and trade is stable and has not seen major trouble for a generation. The Cold War and the proxy conflicts it supported have gone. Perhaps worries about our external security are as old-fashioned as fears of a slump. Perhaps we can conclude that our isolation and remoteness from the causes of trouble are the cheapest and best form of defence.
War has clearly not been abolished. The headlines tell us this every day.
The forms of war have changed, as they have periodically throughout history, but the human causes of war - greed, ambition and fear - have not gone. If aggressive people and states cannot get their way by other means they will still resort to force. Sophisticated weapons and the ability to use them are widely disseminated. Making trouble has never been cheaper. World wars, of the kind which took such a toll in the last century, are highly unlikely in the foreseeable future, if only because of the existence of nuclear weapons. In place of global struggles, terrorism, ethnic and nationalist wars and regional tensions have all flourished in recent times. Experience tells us that this will only change quickly if human nature does.
We are small and remote. "Who would want to invade us?" people ask.
With the passing of the global struggles there is little chance that anyone would want to invade us, and even less chance that they would be able to do so over such long distances.
But this is asking the wrong question. Though direct invasion is the least likely way our prosperity and wellbeing could be destroyed, it is not the only way. Because we are so remote and small we are heavily dependent on our links with the outside world. More than most other countries our comfortable way of life relies on external trade, and therefore on the peace and stability of the countries with whom we trade. There are a myriad other links - knowledge, medicine, investment, travel, technology transfers - which if interrupted would seriously damage New Zealand's quality of life. Though we are isolated - because we are isolated - we have as big a stake in the continuance of peace as anyone.
Working for peace is not a matter of good intentions or admirable statements. It requires work and the commitment of resources over a period of time. This means a defence force sufficient to give credibility to our diplomatic efforts and which can work with our friends to deter trouble or resist it if diplomacy fails. All our friends and neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region are following this policy. They can see that there are risks in the region which will have to be managed collectively, and all are maintaining or increasing their security preparedness - except New Zealand. Is everyone else out of step, or are we?
We know that we are out of step with Australia and that it is affecting the relationship across the board. Australia is our only remaining formal ally.
By its size and location on the edge of Asia it feels itself vulnerable, even to illegal immigration, in a way we at the bottom of the South Pacific do not. Defence matters to the Australian public and they are prepared to spend an increasing amount on it. And they see it at the top of the transTasman relationship where we might see freedom of travel.
The problem is that, despite our differing perceptions of risk, geography has locked us together. A glance at the map shows that neither country could be defended apart from the other, and according to the last poll on the subject 90% of New Zealanders agree. If there is a common security burden, however, Australians resent what they believe is our increasing unwillingness to pick up our fair share. They feel that if we do not spend our share on defence, their taxpayers have to pay more to make up the shortfall.
No-one denies the value of our peacekeeping efforts - in East Timor, Bougainville and the Solomons. But Australia is thinking about the top end of the risk, the chances of major trouble ten or fifteen years out. We cannot add up praise for a series of peacekeeping operations and hope this will be seen as the equivalent of maintaining a level of combat preparedness which can make a useful contribution to the common security. Australia has now concluded that if there is a major crisis over the next decade it will have to do without New Zealand's support.
Couldn't We Be Neutral?
If serious trouble breaks out, many feel, we would be wiser to stand aside and use our isolation to keep out of harm's way. This is enticing but it is a daydream. The Government's statement on defence policy issued in June 2000 simply says that "New Zealand is unlikely to be involved in any wider conflict". It does not explain why it is so confident of this. Such a view suggests that we are buying Lotto tickets for the future rather than making a realistic appraisal of the security risks.
It is a dream because in fact we could not stand aside. Our history, our outlook, our economic and other interests are all against it. We would have been shocked at any suggestion that we stand aside over East Timor, even though that could have led to combat with Indonesia. We would be shocked by any suggestion that we would not be with Australia if that country was threatened. That in itself banishes any fantasy that we can shut ourselves away as a single country with neither obligations nor interests binding us to others.
Our remoteness has never protected us in the past. It can do so even less in a world where trade, transport and communications are global.
Our immunity from invasion does not extend to any of these.
Three-quarters of our trade is done in the Asia-Pacific region and the proportion is increasing. This is drawing us steadily closer to the East Asian economies; our future prosperity will more and more depend on it.
We are happy to see these growing economic ties but it is an illusion to think that a closer relationship can be confined to trade. Closer links mean that we will become more closely involved in other ways, in investment, immigration and education for example, and also in shared security concerns. This is clear enough already in what might be called constabulary concerns - drugs, money-laundering, refugees and piracy. It means also that any future crises, over the future of Taiwan, say, or the South China Sea, would also demand a New Zealand response. Fifty years ago we chose as members of the United Nations to oppose aggression in Korea. Now the gradual tightening of our links with the region is in effect foreclosing our freedom to choose. We cannot be in the region for some purposes and out of it for others.
Can't It Be Left To Our Friends?
It could, because our friends and neighbours all share the same interest in maintaining peace that we do. It is an attractive thought. We could avoid the dangerous and costly business of combat preparedness and instead devote ourselves to the much easier and cheaper task of urging diplomatic solutions. After all, New Zealand is unlikely to be singled out.
If trouble comes it will affect many other countries in the region. In dealing with it those countries will serve our interests as well as their own.
There is a price of course. This is hardly the way to keep our self-respect or win the respect of others. We have hitherto taken a pride in pulling our weight and in giving more than generous return for the freedoms and benefits we inherited. There is no pride in leaving it to others.
If we drop out of the common security effort we must expect to pay in other ways. Nothing is free, and especially not retreat from cooperation in maintaining security Our national interests inevitably take a back seat to those of others. No-one is going to make financial sacrifices or put their young people in harm's way for a country that cannot be bothered to provide for its own security. We are losing influence on things that matter to us. If we are seen as selfish on defence we cannot ask for goodwill on other issues of importance to us. The effects can already be seen, in Australian pressure on the traditional transtasman travel arrangements and in American reluctance over negotiating a free trade agreement with us. There will be more examples to come.
Can We Make A Difference?
Some argue that as a small South Pacific country we should avoid spending on sophisticated military technologies. They are too expensive for us and any capabilities we could pay for would be insignificant compared to the vast firepower available to the United States and the rest of the region. We should concentrate on peacemaking, leaving the cost of combat to others.
No-one else in the region thinks that a prosperous little country with a proud military history (per capita the 21st richest in the world) cannot make a difference. Of course we have to work in a collective security framework with our friends. But that is true of everyone, and if everyone dropped out there would be no collective security for anyone.
Properly-equipped and trained New Zealand's defence forces did make a difference in the past - ask the Singaporeans or Malaysians. There is no reason why we cannot continue to do so.
The point is not only who is prepared to stand up when there is a crisis. In peace as in war defence is part of a country's relationship with its neighbours. If we opt out of maintaining an effective force, we opt out of helping to maintain the peace as well. It is an illusion to think that peace is the natural state of mankind, that left to ourselves we would all live happily together. "War is as old as mankind, but peace is a modern invention", was said more than a century ago, before all the wars that racked the last century. Peace is at least as complicated as war; it has to be worked at no less earnestly. This cannot be done with hopeful words.
It requires also a real and visible commitment to dealing with trouble.
The cost of military technology like all technologies keeps increasing, but on the other hand manpower can be reduced. To say despairingly that we can no longer keep up is no truer of defence than it is of computer technology or any other investment. A modern frigate like Te Kaha costs the taxpayer in real terms only a little more than Canterbury did in 1971.
We were offered two squadrons of top-of-the-line F16 aircraft for an annual rental that was not much more than the cost of keeping the Skyhawks going. There is no evidence to suggest that the cost of maintaining an adequate defence force need ever exceed the 1.8% of GDP which is what we felt able to afford on average over the past five decades.
