Last week the Government released a document titled the Defence Policy Strategy Statement.
According to Prime Minister Chris Hipkins:
In recent years our country has experienced terrorist attacks, growing disinformation, and cyber-attacks on critical national infrastructure.
The domestic and international security environment has changed and our preparedness needs to change too – to be clear-eyed on risks and to put in place the right capabilities to be effective.
The earlier we act, the more secure New Zealand will be for our children and grandchildren.
As we scan the international horizon, we need to keep our eyes wide open to the emerging issues and threats to New Zealand and our interests.
These emerging threats do not require an entirely new foreign policy response. Our independent position, coupled with targeted investments and strengthened ties with partners and allies puts us in a strong position to face the future.
These plans represent an important step in how we are protecting our national security and advancing our national interests in a more contested and more difficult world”.
Former Prime Minster Helen Clark, someone I have the utmost respect for, does not see it this way:
Stuff reports her comments in these terms:
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark fears defence and security strategy documents released by the Government on Friday suggest New Zealand is “abandoning its capacity to think for itself”.
In a thread on X – formerly Twitter – Clark said that rather than thinking for itself, this country was instead “cutting & pasting” from its partners in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance – US, UK, Australia, Canada.
“Drumbeat from officials has been consistent on this for some time,” Clark said in the post.
”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.”
I am with Aunty Helen on this.
This is not a new debate. Back in the 1980s David Lange and the fourth Labour Government decided that Aotearoa New Zealand would not countenance the reliance on nuclear weapons and declared Aotearoa New Zealand nuclear weapons free. In the Oxford debate on the issue, possibly the highlight of his career, he not only commented on smelling uranium on the breath of his opponent but he said this:
New Zealanders are being told they cannot decide how to defend New Zealand. … To compel an ally to accept nuclear weapons, against the wishes of that ally, is to take the moral position of totalitarianism, which allows for no self-determination. And it is exactly the end we are supposed to be fighting against.
The strategy itself is full of words, so many words, but some of them are significant. Like these:
This defence policy reinforces New Zealand’s long-standing commitment to collective security, with Australia and
our other Five Eyes partners”.
And these:
To be effective in achieving these outcomes, our contributions must be operationally credible, valued by partners, and demonstrate New Zealand’s willingness to work and share risks alongside others.
And these:
New Zealand’s relationships with Australia, the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada are part of the overall Five Eyes partnership, a critical grouping of countries that share fundamental values and interests. Defence derives enormous benefit from this partnership, including access to intelligence and defence capabilities, information technologies and military developments that would otherwise be unachievable. It is in New Zealand’s interest to contribute to the effectiveness of this partnership.
Not to forget these:
AUKUS Pillar Two may present an opportunity for New Zealand to cooperate with close security partners on emerging technologies.
The footnote to this comment says:
AUKUS Pillar Two encompasses developing advanced technologies to support defence and security capabilities.
I presume they are referring at least in part to Australia’s planned purchase of three US nuclear submarines over the next few decades.
It is not clear however. The only time the word “nuclear” is mentioned in the report is to refer to North Korea’s potential nuclear arsenal.
Professor Robert Patman, who researches into international relations and global security, has this comment to make about the strategy:
On the one hand, advocates argue that New Zealand risks being strategically marginalised if it does not join Pillar 2. They claim a new Cold War is underway between the US and China, and in this context New Zealand must choose a side to align with.
Given longstanding political and security ties with Australia, the UK and the US, it is claimed it makes sense for New Zealand to align itself with them, and that joining Pillar 2 would ensure access to the advanced defence technologies used by Aukus without jeopardising New Zealand’s non-nuclear security policy.
On the other hand, the sceptics reject the Cold War analogy as fundamentally inaccurate and, in particular, take issue with the binary assumption that US-China rivalry will determine the Indo-Pacific region’s future.
China’s global ambitions are real, but they should not be over-hyped.
China remains economically dependent on key Western markets such as the US and EU, and its one-party state is a deeply unattractive political model for many other states to follow.
Moreover, New Zealand’s participation in Pillar 2 would raise very real uncertainties amongst Asean and Pacific Island states about its independent foreign policy and the credibility of Wellington’s non-nuclear security commitment in a region where Aukus has already been criticised for fuelling nuclear proliferation.
Besides, Aukus does not have a monopoly over new defence technologies, and New Zealand has other options here, bilaterally with Australia or the US, or multilaterally with Nato.
Given the importance of our anti nuclear legislation and the overwhelming support that it enjoys I would hope that the report would address what effects it would have on our anti nuclear legislation. Does the strategy mean that we continue it or do we have to forgo it?
And why do we need to sign up to this agreement which essentially appears to require us to get ready for war with China?
My preference is that we retain our independence. We should be very careful before signing pacts with states armed with nuclear weapons or nuclear capable submarines getting ready for war with our major trading partner.
David Lange was correct when he talked about the absurdity of the status quo and the ANZUS treaty and the importance of deciding things for ourselves. Pillar 2 feels like the latest version of a cold war arrangement that had preparation for combat as its primary driver.
Watch this if you want to feel the force of his argument and maybe shed a tear.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress