Helen Clark’s nuanced take on world events

57 comments on “Helen Clark’s nuanced take on world events ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Res Publica 1

   3 March 2025 at 11:06 am

   Although Helen Clark will go down in history as one of our most competent Prime Ministers, and her being passed over for the Secretary-Generalship of the UN was a travesty, her views on New Zealand's foreign policy are woefully out of touch with current reality.

   We no longer operate in the benign global environment that existed when her government signed an FTA with a pre-Xi Jinping China, navigated our post-9/11 relationship with a still semi-rational USA, and kept New Zealand firmly on the right side of history.

   I acknowledge that military hardware comes at a steep financial and environmental cost, but I’m more than a little skeptical of the claim that re-armament reduces our independence or increases the risk of war.

   To be clear: as a very small state caught between the Scylla of Trump and the Charybdis of China, our foreign policy options could be charitably described as limited. The best we can hope for in terms of "independence" is to carefully calibrate our disagreements with larger powers—to avoid getting steamrolled while maintaining our values.

   If anything, failing to invest in our defense leaves us even more vulnerable to great power whims, rather than giving us any meaningful independence.

   A pragmatic and realistic approach would be:

   1. Strengthen our Navy and Air Force patrol capabilities to protect New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
      • This means at least five frigates with VLS capabilities (to deploy anti-air and anti-ship missiles).
      • More P-8s or navalized drones for long-range surveillance and patrol.
   2. Ensure rapid deployment capabilities in the Pacific to support our regional partners.
      • This isn’t just about self-defense—it’s about making sure we can respond quickly to threats, whether they be military incursions, hybrid warfare, or coercive diplomacy in the region.
   3. Restructure the Army around a deployable battalion-sized force with:
      • Organic logistics, anti-tank, and artillery support.
      • Configurable for peacekeeping operations or as part of a multinational force when necessary.
   4. Maintain relationships with the US, while recognizing that Trumpism (or something worse) may be the future rather than the past.
      • We should still engage in long-term diplomacy with a post-Trump America, in the hope that a future administration restores some sanity.
      • But in the meantime, we must strengthen ties with our Pacific neighbors to counterbalance Chinese expansionism in our region.

   The world is remilitarizing. That is an unfortunate fact, not a choice. New Zealand can either prepare for this reality, or sit on the sidelines and hope for the best. Helen Clark’s idealistic approach, while well-intentioned, does not align with the world as it is today.

   We were once off the bandwagon of US adventurism, and rightly so. But let’s not confuse sensible foreign policy with strategic passivity. In this new era, failing to act is not neutrality. It’s naivety.

   This isn't an argument about guns vs butter. We can have both. We just need to choose to invest wisely and with a long-term strategic goal in mind.
   • Kat 1.1

     3 March 2025 at 12:10 pm

     I would argue that you are out of touch with the state that this country is in at present……any close scrutiny of our economic and social standing would make achieving any of your points from 1 – 3 nothing more than a wish list, a pipe dream.

     The point that Helen Clark is making is that New Zealand has to make a decision,…..are we intent on just becoming a military extension of the US…..or do we want to inact our own foreign policies that are uniquely Kiwi………Helen also noted that we should have a military capacity that is more aligned to neutral peace keeping and aid.
     • Populuxe 1.1.1

       3 March 2025 at 12:40 pm

       What Clark ignores is that decision was already largely set in stone in WW2 and by our geographical location.

       • Our defence, economic, social and geographical relationship with Australia is so closely entangled, wither they go, we go. If they are in the US sphere then by fait accompli so are we. A direct physical attack on us is by default an attack on them and whomever they are allied with.
       • In Australia and even to a certain extent in the US, ANZUS is still regarded as an active entity. While US responsibilities to us were greatly altered by our anti-nuclear policies, we never left, were never kicked out, and the entity still exists.
       • I don't see us leaving FIVE EYES, though I suspect we will lean more into independently sharing intelligence with our Commonwealth partners in parallel.
       • We are not becoming a military extension of the US – for all of the reasons above we have been one since WW2. It's naïve to think otherwise, and even when we don't think we are, the US certainly does.
       • A military capacity aligned to neutral peace keeping and aid is what we've always had, but if China is going to continue to be provocative in the Tasman, that does not seem particularly tenable.
       • Karolyn_IS 1.1.1.1

         3 March 2025 at 1:14 pm

         Clark was talking about new realities the world & NZ faces.

         • NZ's military will never amount to an adequate defence of the country.
         • Increasing NZ's military spend will likely tie us to US military (mis)adventures.
         • A small country like NZ needs a world rules based order via the likes of the International Criminal Court, which the US opposes.
         • Spending more on military internationally, with a new arms race, will mean spending less on poverty and countering climate change locally & internationally.
         • Spending less on poverty will mean there will be more big global pandemics.
         • A lot of international warfare these days is cyber-warfare.
         • Populuxe 1.1.1.1.1

           3 March 2025 at 5:30 pm

           Obviously, which is why the focus has always been on our interoperability with Australia.
       • lprent 1.1.1.2

         3 March 2025 at 3:24 pm

         A military capacity aligned to neutral peace keeping and aid is what we’ve always had, but if China is going to continue to be provocative in the Tasman, that does not seem particularly tenable.

         Don’t be an complete idiot. That wasn’t provocative. That was exactly what the international treaties on the the high seas allows. It is what we and the Australians, UK, US, and just about where does when we send ships outside of our territorial waters. We engage in exercises.

         The only people who are being provocative are the mindless idiots like you who think that doing exercises outside of territorial waters is provocative.

         Ummm.. Read “China wins from Australian overreaction to warship presence” from Jennifer Parker at The Strategist. The bold italics are mine, because I highlight them because you appear to not understand some of the basics of international law on the high seas.

         Under international law, China’s warships can operate on the high seas (beyond 200 nautical miles from our coast). They can also conduct exercises within Australia’s exclusive economic zone (up to 200 nautical miles from our coast). They can even operate in our territorial sea (within 12 nautical miles of our coast), provided their transit is continuous, expeditious and does not disrupt Australia’s good order. This isn’t legal semantics—it’s a fundamental aspect of the freedom of the seas that Australia regularly exercises through our naval deployments.

         While it may be surprising to see naval task groups conducting live-fire exercises in our region, warships—including Australia’s—regularly do so on long deployments for training, maintaining skills or a myriad of other reasons. This is simply what warships do.

         China’s gunnery firing took place on the high seas, about 640 kilometres (340 nautical miles) from our coast—the distance from Canberra to Melbourne. China is well within its rights to conduct such exercises without informing Australia or New Zealand.

         While no international law requires it, best practice, having undertaken many gunnery firings at sea, is that warships maintain at least 18 kilometres (10 nautical miles) from known civilian air routes during live-fire exercises. Air Services Australia reported that 49 aircraft had to be diverted because of the Chinese warships’ firing exercise. Clearly, these warships were too close to these flight paths.
         • Populuxe 1.1.1.2.1

           3 March 2025 at 5:26 pm

           That's like saying Russia flying a MiG right up to the edge of EU airspace isn't provocative.

           I mean, obviously it's not a standard Chinese intimidation tactic, it's not like they did exactly the same thing in the Gulf of Tonkin two months ago when Vietnam outlined where they saw the limit of their territorial border.

           I mean, obviously I'm an idiot because it's perfectly normal for a Chinese naval flotilla to travel thousands of miles from their territory just to park up in the narrow sliver of international waters between two regional powers working against its interests in the Pacific.

           You know, just turn up without alerting anyone except commercial pilots just a short period of time before live rounds drills as if to demonstrate how it could completely shut down trans-Tasman air traffic. Conveniently where it might detect our submarine communications cables – not that they would ever sever such cables here or, oh, I don't know, Taiwan two months ago.

           That's just perfectly fucking normal behaviour. Obviously they're not signaling that it would be a piece of piss to completely disrupt all of our lines of communication with Australia and vice versa at the drop of a hat. Clearly I am just an idiot.

           I mean I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it comes in the middle of AUKUS negotiations and our little disagreement over the Cook Islands. I'm sure it's all just a coincidence. I'm just a mindless idiot who is just being provocative.
           • Scud 1.1.1.2.1.1

             3 March 2025 at 5:33 pm

             "That's like saying Russia flying a MiG right up to the edge of EU airspace isn't provocative."

             Actually both sides during the Cold War did actually that

             Not only with Jets but also with Armoured Battle Groups with hilarious outcomes on both sides of the Border.
             • Populuxe …

               3 March 2025 at 5:53 pm

               They're still doing it today, though it's less amusing right now. EU fighter jets get scrambled every couple of months to intercept Russian jets and drones. Intimidation combined with plausible deniability.
           • lprent 1.1.1.2.1.2

             5 March 2025 at 2:07 pm

             That's like saying Russia flying a MiG right up to the edge of EU airspace isn't provocative.

             WTF!

             That happens all of the time? So does the converse – NATO aircraft flying right up to the edge of Russian Fed airspace.

             Not to mention the antics of all navies around Europe sitting just at the edge of territorial waters.

             Or the frequent land force exercises on EU and RF borders.

             Where have you been for the last 80 odd years – living in a news vacuum? I’m not even going to link to articles. Just read any European news orientated to military events, and you should find at least an article every week with countries going on alert because of a potential threat.

             Europe is a tiny place. France to the Urals is only about 4000km. Roughly the same distance as travelling from one coast of aussie to the other – the longest way.

             I mean, obviously I'm an idiot because it's perfectly normal for a Chinese naval flotilla to travel thousands of miles from their territory just to park up in the narrow sliver of international waters between two regional powers working against its interests in the Pacific.

             You are correct – you appear to be a very ignorant idiot.

             Firstly the 'narrow sliver' is about 2250kms wide at the closest point between NZ and Aussie. Hardly a sliver.

             For an example of relative sizes, the length of our three main island is only 1600km – considerably smaller than the width of the Tasman. Australia's maximum width is only about 4000km. As google AI just pointed out the diameter of the moon is only 3.472km.

             Like many of your ideas, you lack a sense of proportion and are profoundly ignorant of essential details. Probably because you are too damn lazy to think or even use google.

             Of course according to you – Australia and sometimes NZ never send flotillas of military ships into the South China Sea on 'slivers near to and inside waters claimed by a number of other nations including China. The 'slivers' of seas that those naval ships slither through on their exercises is almost invariably considerably less than that of the Tasman – the Tasman is kind of short of islands that increase territorial waters.

             But in your world view neither we nor the Aussies would ever do with our navies.

             Ummm…

             • For instance this NZ deployment in 2024 was mostly with aussie navy vessels, much of it in the South China sea doing exercises.
             • This means this exercise with US,Uk, and Aussie navies in 2025 never happened right? Couldn't have been in Chinese, Vietnamese EEC waters.
             • Or that this exercise with the US, Japan, and Aussie in 2020 didn't happen.
             • Or look at the Taiwan straits. The German navy has been there recently along with many others. Now that is a sliver of sea – about 180km average, and at its narrowest point a mere 70 nautical miles.

             As far as I am aware, most if not all, exercises of navies have some live fire components to the exercises as well as the simulated ones.

             Perhaps you'd like to articulate your actual reasons that the Chinese navy should not be able to exercise the same freedom of the seas and the international laws that surround that? Racism perhaps. Or being a search technophobe?
             • Populuxe …

               5 March 2025 at 6:37 pm

               $5.3 trillion worth of goods, including those from the US, EU, UK, Australia and NZ, transit through the South China Sea annually. China has no such strategic interest in the open waters of the Tasman, does it? It's overkill to protect a few fishing ships, no?

               Countries like the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan have defence agreements with the US, Australia, and other nations including NZ, and those navy interoperability exercises are mostly multinational affairs in cooperation with those Asian states organised years in advance, and indeed largely stimulated by increasingly provocative actions by the Chinese Navy in relation to disputes over maritime borders.

               Please explain how that is comparable with China's presence in the Tasman because I'm not seeing it myself.

               Last time I checked, the Renhai-class cruiser had the GJB 5860-2006 vertical launch systems which can accommodate a range of standard missiles including CJ-10 missiles with a range of more than 1500km, and DF-6 missiles with a range of 3,500–5,000km, but even their YJ-18s can still take out a ship at 280km. It also carries two marine helicopters, so I doubt range is an issue tbh. They also, just for fun, have an electronic warfare system. Never said they were going to use it, but they've got it.

               Perhaps you'd like to articulate your actual reasons that the Chinese navy should not be able to exercise the same freedom of the seas and the international laws that surround that? Racism perhaps. Or being a search technophobe?

               That's just it. I never said they shouldn't be able to exercise that freedom. They have every legal right to be there. However, I'm not going to be completely obtuse about it. Accusations of racism seem an overreaction. I wouldn't be particularly happy if the Russians or Americans parked up there either unannounced.

               I did say it was suspicious – which it clearly is.

               Air Services Australia reported that 49 aircraft had to be diverted because of the Chinese warships’ firing exercise. Clearly, these warships were too close to these flight paths.

               Do you seriously think the Chinese Navy doesn't know all that? Or do you think they are perhaps stupid, or incompetent? I don't. Certainly not with Type 382 radar which is state of the art 3-D naval air search radar somewhat better than anything the Russians have. Therefore, it is suspicious, particularly as they didn't see any need to notify Australia or New Zealand for air traffic control purposes. Are we not friends?

               I said it seemed to be calculated intimidation, unless you can think of an entirely innocent and reasonable purpose for them being there, and China does have an established record of conducting unannounced solo naval exercises near countries that have variously upset them. That is merely reasoning from prior history. Do you want a list?

               I said that we may have to readdress our naval capabilities. This seemed to set you off, I have no idea why. That's been mainstream discussion for decades. In the event from a country, like China, or Russia, or Indonesia, or France (who, it may be recalled, sank a ship in one of our harbours), or even the US, wishing to degrade our most strategically important sea lanes with Australia as some sort of intimidation or nuisance, it is not an unreasonable consideration.

               Obviously we're not going to leap directly to a confrontation because that would be stupid and we'd get our arses kicked, but it's nice to know what's going on and demonstrate that we know what's going on. That's generally what other countries do.

               Is that good enough searching?
               • lprent …

                 12 March 2025 at 2:44 pm

                 $5.3 trillion worth of goods, including those from the US, EU, UK, Australia and NZ, transit through the South China Sea annually. China has no such strategic interest in the open waters of the Tasman, does it? It's overkill to protect a few fishing ships, no?

                 Blue water navies do long range deployments, often with live fire exercises far from land. Which is what this deployment is.

                 We do it, every navy does it. It allows deployment issues to be sorted out like:

                 • did we bring enough toilet paper?
                 • what spare parts that we didn't bring that would leave us dead in the water?
                 • can our logistics support ships supply us in a long deployment?

                 Similarly, live fire exercises are often made in locations that have a paucity of shipping, fishing boats, and aircraft.

                 That allows for exercises that can be done without warning – which is usually the best way to test actual readiness. It also allows

                 You'll notice that the complaints from the actual military like ours and the aussies wasn't about them conducting live fire exercises where they did. Just a request for them to give more warning to air-traffic so that the air routes could be diverted earlier. In other words, we do all of those things. Just with a slightly earlier air-traffic warning

                 Expect to see more PLA Navy ships down here. The PLA is rapidly building a blue water navy – read this Indian analysis about why. With good reason. They have immense trade routes and one of the largest national cargo fleets. They will also need blue water navy to cover threats to that.

                 Their two areas for training deployments to lift their blue-water training where they can be away for months (a crucial part of blue water training) with relatively unpopulated ocean are the Indian Ocean, and the South Pacific.

                 As is obvious when reading any Indian military or strategic analysis, the Indians are deeply sensitive about deployments there. After all they fought a war in 1962, and have had armed disputes within the last few years. Whereas down in the South Pacific there by comparison, little to no attention.

                 Even where they exercised is less of an worrying for our military than if they'd done it by Norfolk Island, Raoul Island, or the Chathams. I'm sure that if you pull your head out of your arse for long enough to do some thinking, you'd understand why having exercises where we can observe is less worrying than places with little observational tools.

                 Given that is is probably the most benign place for the PLA blue water navy to train in blue water skills, I'd expect to see more activity in the future. Not for intimidation, but more to learn how to build a working blue water navy. The US does that mostly off towards the relatively unpopulated north Pacific Hawaii waters. I suspect that the PLA will do a lot of it down in the South Pacific waters down the island chain.

                 I said it seemed to be calculated intimidation, unless you can think of an entirely innocent and reasonable purpose for them being there, and China does have an established record of conducting unannounced solo naval exercises near countries that have variously upset them. That is merely reasoning from prior history. Do you want a list?

                 When you look at that list, you will need to check what the actual force involved. Because I suspect you are looking at it with the eyes of someone who has problems distinguishing relevant details.

                 For instance remove the PLA Navy coastal defence forces, the Chinese Coast Guard, and the fishing patrol craft – all of which are deployed around land masses claimed by China. They aren't offensive naval forces, they are patrol boats with very limited offensive capabilities. Same with course the PLA non-offensive ships like supply ships and spy ships.

                 Furthermore, remove the items from the list that are around claimed and sometimes disputed plots of land or reefs. They are an assertion of sovereignty by discovery or prior ownership. Just like freedom of the seas is a legitimate use of patrol craft. Just like the US does in Gulf of Mexico, Alaska or a pile of North Pacific islands what we do around the Auckland Islands or Raoul Island.

                 That will reduce your list of 'prior history' down to virtually nothing. Offhand I am only aware of a few cases of blue water deployments of well-armed warships.

                 In other words, that is my way of saying that you're simply bullshitting by equating different things as being the same.

                 By what appears to be your rather ignorant and probably bigoted criteria, the US coast guard actions near the Caribbean could easily be called "… conducting unannounced solo naval exercises near countries that have variously upset them". Not to mention the game playing that goes on in the Arctic by the Russians, US and Canadians

                 Also that you appear to know fuck all about how naval or indeed any military forces operate when training or otherwise.
     • Scud 1.1.2

       3 March 2025 at 1:28 pm

       Well don't complain when NZ's Sea Lanes Of Communications are degraded to a point it effects NZ Economic Security by directly or indirectly.

       This has happened to NZ twice in both WW's when German Merchant Raiders laid Sea Mines & sunk Merchant Ships in & around NZ Waters. Then the in WW2 we had DKM (German) U Boats & Japanese I Boats operating in NZ Waters we were very lucky that U & I Boats were ineffective & mass to be effective! Plus the Japanese managed to overflights over Auckland & Wellington from its I Boats.

       NZ has to few Maritime ISR Aircraft, to few Naval Ships to patrol NZ Waters let alone to protect, to deny, defend NZ's Sea Lanes of Communications let alone protect NZ Ports from possible Mine laying or able to Mine Counter Measures.

       The way to sink Ships is by Submarine, then Mines & thirdly USV's providing they have Satellites/ ISR MPA's to provide the GPS link or Line of Sight from Base Stations fitted to a ship be it a Merchant Raider or Naval Ship.

       Remember
       • Res Publica 1.1.2.1

         3 March 2025 at 1:35 pm

         What's more, I can very easily imagine that both our allies and enemies have sailed nuclear powered submarines through our territorial waters despite our nuclear free status.

         It's just they haven't told us about it.
         • Macro 1.1.2.1.1

           3 March 2025 at 1:43 pm

           They have indeed and through 5 eyes we may well know about it – but I couldn't possibly say.
         • Populuxe 1.1.2.1.2

           3 March 2025 at 5:28 pm

           I'd be hugely surprised if they didn't. And it's only going to get busier if Australia gets those nuclear submarines.
       • Macro 1.1.2.2

         3 March 2025 at 1:41 pm

         What Scud says.

         This has happened to NZ twice in both WW's when German Merchant Raiders laid Sea Mines & sunk Merchant Ships in & around NZ Waters.
       • Scud 1.1.2.3

         3 March 2025 at 4:17 pm

         My apologies for finishing my response as I was at the physio & then duck off to the Big Green Shed to pick a 4000w Genset & extra chain for the Chainsaw as King Alfred is popping in for visiting sometime Wednesday or Thursday.

         Anyway back to topic.

         Remember Mickey Savage started rearm the NZDF in what 1938 when the League of Nations collapsed and the signing Munich Declaration, when he realised the war was a now possiblity.

         So he took a Bob each way bet hoping that diplomacy remains the primacy, while planning for worse case which was war.

         He started to expand the RNZAF long range Maritime ISR & Strike Capabilities & the RNZN anti Sub/ surface warfare & Mine Counter Measure capabilities. The Army started planning for a rapid mobilisation & started to ask Industry about producing Artillery, Armoured Vehicles, Firearms etc.

         And that was only start, then was Paddy Webb organising State & Private Coal Mines to increase productivity & Bob Semple's MoW building Defence, & Civil Defence Infrastructure.
       • Populuxe 1.1.2.4

         3 March 2025 at 5:32 pm

         Yes, it's not like it's our most strategic stretch of communication and transport with our nearest and most important economic and defence partner or anything, but then I'm just an idiot.
       • Anne 1.1.2.5

         3 March 2025 at 6:04 pm

         I don't remember it but midway through WW2 my mother and the other wives and children of military personnel stationed in Tonga and Samoa were evacuated by ship to NZ. At the halfway mark, the ship had to sail through a minefield so all the passengers assembled on deck in life jackets. On the command of the ship’s captain they had to jump overboard into the sea. I was 3 mths. old and strapped into a tiny rubber boat.

         Fortunately the ship got through in one piece.

         Years later I asked my mother "what was she going to do with me?". She told me she had to throw me overboard first then she would jump into the sea after me. Charming!
     • Res Publica 1.1.3

       3 March 2025 at 1:37 pm

       The point that Helen Clark is making is that New Zealand has to make a decision,…..are we intent on just becoming a military extension of the US…..or do we want to inact our own foreign policies that are uniquely Kiwi………Helen also noted that we should have a military capacity that is more aligned to neutral peace keeping and aid

       I don't think that's the choice at all.

       The real choices is whether we want to maintain sufficient defense capability to present ourselves as a plausible ally and do some of our own heavy lifting in our neighborhood.

       Or, pursue a foreign policy that amounts to sticking our heads in the sand and hoping she'll be right.
       • KJT 1.1.3.1

         3 March 2025 at 3:48 pm

         Well. At the moment the Coalition of. Cockups is engaged in legislation to make it easier for China, or the USA et Al, to buy NZ.

         Any one who thinks they will take the more expensive option of invasion, or, if they did we could put up any conceivable resistance, is living in a jingoistic fantasy world.

         We should have been more definite about the moral suasion of a genuine "rules based order". Unfortunately we ignored the USA totally flouting it. Hypocritical of those who now object to China and Russia imitating their example.

         Not too late however for the countries that oppose imperialistic adventerism to get together in the UN and otherwise, to help stop it.

         Consistency is required however. US supported bloody fascist coups in South America, Chinese annexation of territories that don't want it (Taiwan), Russian invasion of their neighbours, Saudi's bombing theirs, the Zionist project of slow ethnic cleansing, and other examples of baby killing ruthlessness, should be equally, anathema.
         • Res Publica 1.1.3.1.1

           3 March 2025 at 3:57 pm

           I think it's a mistake to reduce everything to some sort of moral zero-sum game.

           We have to be realistic and pragmatic. Yes, the current (or maybe now past) order was/is deeply flawed: the hypocrisy, power imbalances, and selective enforcement of rules are undeniable. But even a flawed system of international norms is better than a world where power alone dictates outcomes.

           The alternative is a return to pure great-power competition, revanchism, and the use of force against smaller states whenever it is expedient.

           If the rules-based order is breaking down, the response shouldn't be to discard it entirely, but to strengthen and enforce it more consistently. That means holding all powers accountable: whether it's the U.S., China, Russia, or anyone else, rather than letting cynicism justify inaction
       • lprent 1.1.3.2

         3 March 2025 at 4:03 pm

         …and do some of our own heavy lifting in our neighborhood.

         Ideally with drones, air borne, sea borne, and capable of carrying armed payloads. In particular, I’d like to start looking at stratospheric observation and network meshed comm drones as an alternative to satellites. Especially ones with light than air and solar power capabilities. Sure we’d lose them in the weather. But the trick is to make them cheap, replaceable and long range.

         Based on some of the job-ads I have looked at over the last year, there is a shit-ton of activity in most of these areas in NZ (not so much on armed payloads as far as I can see yet). For instance https://www.keaaerospace.com/ (pity they are in ChCh – sounds like a interesting use of many of my skills)

         We have an enormous territorial waters and exclusive economic zone. Most of our island friends do as well. We all do a shite job of managing those. But in terms of defence, these look like activities that it’d be simple to use our innovation and technology on.

         Also would likely be a lucrative export market. Think of the places along our trade routes who would also like this kind of coverage. Singapore, Indonesia, Korea, Aussie, Japan spring to mind.

         What is obvious at present from the various conflicts world wide is that military defence using relatively cheap gear is overpowering military offence. Rather than building a lot of crewed ships and air craft, we should be looking to make them more effective.

         The same applies to our ground forces. Ground force operations are just all about knowing what is happening and where to strike effectively.

         Having our arse being covered by a high tech US or even Aussie ally (think of the friendliness of Peter Dutton) doesn’t look like viable option into the future. That may concern the conservatives here. But I think of it as being somewhat liberating.
       • Scud 1.1.3.3

         3 March 2025 at 4:41 pm

         Well she is talking porkie pies & why!

         She refused too increase the Defence Budget IAW with the lessons learnt from the recent INTERFET/ UN Peacekeeping Stabilisation Mission to Timor Leste.

         like more C130's, Smaller Tactical Airlifters, a 1for 1 replacement of Huey's

         Increase the Navy's Frigates to at 3 – 4 Frigates & at 1-2 Landing Ships with a docking well.

         The Army wanted to increase its RF Capability & build the TF (Reserve) numbers back to pre 91 levels.

         This would've given the NZDF depth & mass for future UN Peacekeeping Stabilisation Missions to low/ Medium Warlike Operations. But cost would been around 2-2.5% GDP.

         Hugh White an AUKUS skeptic like me, said at a recent AUKUS symposium. "If Australia & NZ want an Independent Foreign Policy? Then it to rise it Defence Budget spending to at least 5% GDP at a minimum! This was same AUKUS symposium that Bob Carr & Helen Clark attended btw!

         Also of late, The Govt has asked it's Air Corp for costings to re-establish it's Strike Wing Capabilities along Air to Air Refueling Capabilities like the C130 or A400.

         Plus the Government has asked the same with its Navy IRT purchasing Frigates, upgrade it's Corvettes & Support Ships.

         The NZLP Defence Policy was meant to be modelled on the Defence Force. If the are increasing Defence Budget spending, then is going to make NZ look at of place.
       • Kat 1.1.3.4

         3 March 2025 at 5:01 pm

         "I acknowledge that military hardware comes at a steep financial and environmental cost, but I’m more than a little skeptical of the claim that re-armament reduces our independence or increases the risk of war………

         Although very debatable, whether re-armament increases or decreases the risk of war for New Zealand is not in question here…….however, lets put your 'wish list 1-3' to the current Minister for economic development to crunch the numbers and so all that military hardware can be ordered now for future delivery……..is there a preferred time frame in your pragmatic and realistic approach…….. or just leave it open ended……maybe just a few years after the new Cook Straight ferries are delivered…..we can ask for any military incursion whims of the great power's to hold off until then…….now, in the meantime…………
       • Populuxe 1.1.3.5

         3 March 2025 at 8:37 pm

         Yes, again I agree with you. And that is always going to hinge on interoperability with Australia and whoever Australia is aligned with.

         It may be a vain hope on my part, but I don't think Trump and MAGA is permanent. I think they're going to get kicked in the goolies in the mid-terms and will lose bigly in the House. There's a lot of buyers remorse in MAGA now among those who aren't completely un-self-aware. It would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater and completely cut ties with the US.
     • thinker 1.1.4

       3 March 2025 at 5:18 pm

       Not just about opting for a peacekeeping role. That's the best bolt-hole for us to head for.

       The reason that's our best bolt-hole is that Helen is saying that we've been lucky in the past, to be able to be part of 5eyes and have China as one of our biggest trading partners. But the time is coming when the US and China won't like us cosying up to the other one. Hence, the best strategy is t loo play the neutral card, for as long as we can do so.

       I read the RNZ summary of the interview at lunchtime and might have missed her saying it, but the unwritten message that goes with the above is we won't do very well by retaliating to Chinese war games in south Pacific waters by tagging along with a US-led sorti into the South China Sea.

       Especially, I would say, when established relationships with the likes of Canada and Ukraine are so easily tossed aside, like a chicken bone at a gluttons feast.
   • Populuxe 1.2

     3 March 2025 at 12:28 pm

     I agree, and to an extant I get annoyed with the way she almost tries to run an independent foreign policy through social media. Although for the most part she was a great PM, she is still very attached to what I call "Clark Doctrine" – that our part of the Pacific is a "strategically benign environment" – which it likely was back in the 1990s/early 2000s. There are a lot of NZ diplomats around from that time who have had been very well wined and dined by Beijing who still cling to an image of Xi as a cuddly trade panda, while ignoring activity in the South China Sea, exploitation in Africa, and the way aid loans have been leveraged, and the implications for the Silk Road and Belt initiative in the Pacific. Not that we want to lose our relationship with China, but we probably shouldn't kid ourselves that it makes us special.
     • Res Publica 1.2.1

       3 March 2025 at 12:55 pm

       Thats the nub: we aren't special. And anyone that wants to maintain a theory of kiwi exceptionalism is deluded at best.

       We have to remember that the traditional Chinese approach to foreign policy is to divide the world into two categories: barbarians they haven't conquered yet. And vassals that recognise their place in the world and who's perculiarities can be tolerated as long as they do what they're told.

       Australia and the US have allies. China wants client states.
       • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.2.1.1

         3 March 2025 at 1:14 pm

         As you seem keen on Latin and/or Rome. Everyone else..were barbarians to Rome. This from the Empire that also bought torture and death as public entertainment on a grand guignol scale.

         And re your "Australia and the US have allies" .We followed blindly into the horror of the Vietnam war…to support a dictator.

         FYI…for those hard of understanding, I do not support Putin, Trump, XI et al.

         NZ needs to be a Voice of Reason.
         • Res Publica 1.2.1.1.1

           3 March 2025 at 1:33 pm

           As you seem keen on Latin and/or Rome. Everyone else..were barbarians to Rome. This from the Empire that also bought torture and death as public entertainment on a grand guignol scale.

           And that's different from a brutal dictatorship that regularly disappears its own citizens as a matter of policy and has built a high-powered surveillance apparatus that would make autocrats from Tiberius to Hitler green with envy… how?

           As for following:

           We blindly followed the UK into ignominious war crimes and attempted ethnic cleansing during the Boer war.

           We then blindly followed the UK into the horrors of WWI, where Haig and Churchill gleefully used our young men as little more than disposable shock troops on the dusty shores of Gallipoli and in the gore and mud of Passchendaele.

           And then again in WWII where we went where Britain went and stood where she did. At great costs in both lives and treasure. All to preserve the idea of an empire that proved both hollow and pointless.

           We also fought in the jungles of Malaysia and the hills and fields of Korea during the 50s to preserve the international order Trump and Putin are so gleefully junking.

           Fact of the matter is as a small nation we're always going to be followers of wider international forces whipped up by bigger fish. All we can do is choose whether we do so with our heads held high or pressed into the dirt.

           And last time I checked, our national values did not include sitting callously on the sidelines while others suffer. Even if they are half the world away.

           So yeah, I'd argue it's entirely reasonable to choose to maintain at least a minimal defense capability sufficient to at least patrol and protect our EEZ in peacetime.

           And prove ourselves reliable and plausible allies during conflict.
           • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.2.1.1.1.1

             3 March 2025 at 1:45 pm

             Gee obviously touched a bit of nerve there aye.

             Anyway re Vietnam. You attempt to throw Malaysia and Korea into it? A fan of Domino theory ?

             We also fought in the jungles of Malaysia and the hills and fields of Korea during the 50s to preserve the international order

             Malaysia a part of an Imperial Empire. That they did not want any part of.

             Korea, where napalm was rained down on all. A country burned alive.

             Do not try to school me on History….
             • Res Publica …

               3 March 2025 at 1:50 pm

               Anyway re Vietnam. You attempt to throw Malaysia and Korea into it? A fan of Domino theory ?

               No: just a fan of a pragmatic but principled foreign policy devoid of tankie mental gymnastics or pointless handwringing.

               If you want to continue to peddle your selective (and highly revisionist) take on history, then be prepared to be called out on it.
               • PsyclingLeft.Always …

                 3 March 2025 at 1:51 pm

                 If you want to continue to peddle your selective (and highly revisionist) take on history, then be prepared to be called out on it.

                 Lol. And you.
       • lprent 1.2.1.2

         3 March 2025 at 3:14 pm

         That was mostly the way of it post war.

         From the look of his last term and the start of this one, Trump thinks that he should be working on the Chinese model, and that states like us should prostrate ourselves under his ball sack.

         In the first term it was worth waiting to see what he’d try. After finding he would have daily problems finding his scrotum past his ego then our policy was to look to the US voters to see if they would resume being a reliable ally. Clearly the answer is that they did not. Trump and those who voted for him is clearly making the US to be a uselessly unreliable ally both militarily and economically.

         When something is clearly untenable, how long should we conservatively waste time chasing a decaying will-o-wisp?
         • Res Publica 1.2.1.2.1

           3 March 2025 at 3:42 pm

           That's exactly what I'm trying to argue shrug

           In an era where we are stuck between a morally moribund United States and an ambitious, increasingly aggressive China, it absolutely makes sense for us to look for alliances elsewhere.

           But, to do that we have to bring something plausible and tangible (i.e. military hardware) and show we can at least look after our own backyard.

           We can no longer safely rely on freeloading off a US backed global order.
           • lprent 1.2.1.2.1.1

             3 March 2025 at 4:17 pm

             Sorry…

             Pretty much my thoughts as well.

             I'd like to start getting away from some of the old military assumptions as well. We're not likely to wind up on the battlefields of Europe again.

             We potentially have some pretty large fields of view in NZ, but we keep acting as if we can't see out into them. Modern warfare is all about what you can see and what you can do with precision.
             • Res Publica …

               3 March 2025 at 4:25 pm

               Modern warfare is all about what you can see and what you can do with precision.

               And if the war in Ukraine has taught us anything, it's that you can build the capability to do so relatively quickly and cheaply if you're smart about it. Then use that to complement your handful of larger, more capable (and expensive!) platforms.

               It's probably even within the means of a small island state in the South Pacific.
       • Populuxe 1.2.1.3

         3 March 2025 at 8:38 pm

         I think China just told us very clearly that we aren't special, but then as has been established, I am a mindless idiot.
   • alwyn 1.3

     3 March 2025 at 1:17 pm

     "her being passed over for the Secretary-Generalship of the UN was a travesty".

     I don't believe that she ever had a chance of becoming the Secretary- General and I doubt if she ever thought she was a real prospect to get the job. It was Europe's turn and that was where the SG came from.

     In campaigning for the job she was like the "favourite son" candidates that used to be common in US Presidential campaigns. They were usually State Governors who wanted the glory of having been a candidate, even if they never had a chance at the nomination.

     Helen was like that. She was never higher than fifth in the rankings and she finally quit when the votes of the Permanent members were given separately and there were three vetoes of her attempt to get the job.
     • Res Publica 1.3.1

       3 March 2025 at 1:39 pm

       Come now alwyn.

       Let's not let cold, hard facts get in the way of a fun rhetorical flourish
   • kejo 1.4

     3 March 2025 at 5:16 pm

     Well, if we want both guns and butter perhaps we should start taxing the rich. We,re having trouble affording just the butter at the moment.
2. Mountain Tui 2

   3 March 2025 at 11:58 am

   Helen Clark showed me what a competent, intelligent and serious Prime Minister looks like.

   Thanks for sharing the interview – it was excellent and is grounded in current events – and insights from her recent meetings with world leaders and interactions at the recent Munich security conference.
3. Tiger Mountain 3

   3 March 2025 at 12:08 pm

   As good an analysis on the changing world order as I have heard from any pundit-and time to leave 5 Eyes-cherry on top!

   Despite her intransigence over ditching Rogernomics when in office, she is that rare person that has grown in stature since leaving the Parliamentary arena.
   • Karolyn_IS 3.1

     3 March 2025 at 12:47 pm

     Agree. I wasn't happy with her ditching closing the gaps, or her response to Foreshore & seabed, etc.

     But she's clearly still watching local and international politics locally and internationally. Clark said that:

     • the Chinese war ships in the Tasman wasn't the Spanish Armada;
     • 5-Eyes was OK when it was low key information sharing, but it's now a policy platform, and could leak info to Russian govt, & that it's now about interpretation eg Iraq dossier took 2+2 and made it = 17;
     • if money is not spent on countering poverty internationally we'll have more big pandemics.
     • Populuxe 3.1.1

       3 March 2025 at 5:50 pm

       I think she's being obtuse there. It doesn't need to be the Spanish Armada because it's not the sixteenth century and we certainly don't have the equivalent English navy.
       China's tactic in the South China Sea and around Taiwan has all been relatively low-key intimidation – cutting cables, live round drills close to EEZ limits. This is no different. It's a warning.

       She was right on 5-Eyes, granted.
   • Anne 3.2

     3 March 2025 at 3:26 pm

     Helen fought tooth and nail against the introduction of Rogernomics. I was on the ground in Mt. Albert in the early days of her career and saw it with my own eyes. By the time she took office as PM in Nov.1999, it was so entrenched in the system she had to tread slowly and carefully. She was starting to make inroads and had she been given one more term in 2008, I think she would have succeeded in killing the worst aspects of Rogernomics at the least.
     • Phillip ure 3.2.1

       3 March 2025 at 5:39 pm

       Any ideas/thoughts on why she ended birthright…?

       ..and why she entrenched child poverty..by making working for families only for the families of those working…?

       These weren't her rolling back rogernomics…

       These were instigated by the Clark government…

       ..and caused enormous damage…lasting to this day..

       .and like I said: 'why?'…
4. Tiger Mountain 4

   3 March 2025 at 1:48 pm

   The tone of some of the responses in this thread seems like they may have emanated from Pipitea St. or NZSIS fellow travellers at least…
   • Res Publica 4.1

     3 March 2025 at 1:57 pm

     If you have an issue with my analysis Tiger Mountain, then I'm more than happy to read your rebuttal.
     • Scud 4.1.1

       3 March 2025 at 7:19 pm

       Same here LoL,

       If Tiger Mountain, wants to put all on red at the Blackjack Table for Diplomacy to succeed?

       Then don't complain when it all goes to shit when diplomacy fails!

       I'll rather be like Mickey Savage in 37-38 and take a Bob each way at least I'll have a half ass plan which is better than having no plan if Diplomacy fails.
5. Ad 5

   3 March 2025 at 2:48 pm

   If NZ had continued the Clark trajectory we'd have kept Cook Islands and Kiribati inside the Realm rather than now being reduced to a few islands off Eastern Australia.

   We lost both in 2025.

   Our influence has rapidly declined to slightly more than Fiji.

   No party in parliament wants a big defence or aid or diplomatic capacity.

   NZ has got weaker in all respects and there's no future sign of future improvement.

   No point Clark doing a Judy Dench in Bond quoting Tennyson. It's just false.
6. tWig 6

   3 March 2025 at 3:22 pm

   The Guardian Live: Australia won't send troops to Ukraine to join Starmer's Coalition of the Willing
7. lprent 7

   3 March 2025 at 4:52 pm

   Good interview. Guyon behaved himself and was asking the kinds of probing questions that elucidate rather than act as accusations or editorialisations. Which he has been prone to in the past.
8. SPC 8

   3 March 2025 at 7:24 pm

   Afterwards Marama Davidson was interviewed.
   • Phillip ure 8.1

     4 March 2025 at 9:31 am

     I watched the interview..

     (Good to see marama looking well again..may it last..

     She is really rocking that hair-do…heh..!)

     And I was left interested in the upcoming green budget..

     ..my expectations have built to such a degree …I am expecting a bold blueprint for transformation..

     ..not just words..but the nuts and bolts of how we get there..

     .. anything less won't be enough..

     ..and the reasons for that bold blueprint hearkens back to the question guyon asked ..namely why have green parties/the left been losing all over the planet..?

     ..to my mind the answer to that (unanswered) question is clear…

     …they failed to deliver…for the greens worldwide who coalesced with incrementalism-drenched labour-ish parties….they have all been punished by the voters…who clearly are looking for different ways to do things..

     This is why this upcoming green budget must show a clear path to that other…

     ..or the greens could be risking their relevance..perhaps their very existence…

     …if we follow those international trends of the voters turning away from the greens…

     It's crunch time..!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS