Wither Foreign Policy?

Written By: - Date published: 8:31 am, October 5th, 2023 - 7 comments
Categories: AUKUS, australian politics, China, defence, Diplomacy, FiveEyes, Pacific, Peace, Russia, Ukraine, us politics, war - Tags:

Alexander Gillespie complains that kiwis are not being given answers on foreign policy in the election. Given the state of flux in the world, and the questions he poses, it is probably just as well. The answers might all be dangerous.

Will New Zealand join AUKUS Pillar 2 he asks? It is supposed to be about access to technology, but nobody really knows. And will it be the best technology? I wouldn’t bet on it, given what is shown by the unfolding war in Ukraine.

Gillespie would like to know if New Zealand would join in if the US provokes a civil war in China over Taiwan, which we say officially is part of it? Australia looks like being the US proxy in this one, and they are our only ally. It is only some officials, media and academics who are in support of us joining in such a war, and they will not be involved in any fight. Chris Hipkins has said that New Zealand’s approach should be diplomatic, and this is supported by Greens and Te Pati Maori. It makes absolute sense.

Will we continue to send expensive ships to play chicken with China on their borders, Gillespie asks? In the China Seas, where freedom of navigation is undoubtedly more important to them than to us! The bigger danger will be if our expensive Poseidons start circling around China. It would be good to know if that is part of their envisaged role, so we can ask why.

Gillespie has noticed that “the Pacific is also in a state of geopolitical flux.” He then asks “how does New Zealand respond to the ‘comprehensive partnership‘ just announced between China and Timor-Leste covering military exchanges, training and exercises.” It is well worth reading the linked statement of the Chinese readout; it has 15 clauses, mostly concerned with mutual development. Clause 10 is the only one which deals with military exchanges, and it states:

The two nations agreed to enhance high-level military exchanges, strengthen cooperation in areas such as personnel training, equipment technology, the conduct of joint exercises and training. The government of Timor-Leste highly commended the Peace Ark Hospital ship from the Chinese Navy which performed “Mission Harmony-2023” in Timor-Leste from September 3rd to the 10th, which provided humanitarian medical service to local Timorese people.

We should be concerned about Chinese hospital ships visiting East Timor? The only possible response would seem to be “good on you.” We have been engaged in Timor before, but I must say I am much more concerned about the massive permanent build-up of US  offensive forces on the other side of the Timor Straits, with B-52  nuclear bombers on permanent rotation, stationed there to diversify possible targets for China.

Then there is the Ukraine. Gillespie states that ‘New Zealand is not directly involved,’ and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Our FiveEyes analysts are interpreting data from the reconnaissance aircraft constantly circling Ukraine, and feeding the information to the frontline troops. As for the military training, Ukrainians are complaining that it is not relevant to what they are faced with on the battlefield. As the Cabinet briefing papers noted, training in England is really a retention incentive for bored and underpaid troops.

As for a peace deal, the window for that was slammed shut long ago, by Boris Johnson’s disastrous  intervention in April 2022 negotiations in Turkiye. The slaughter particularly on the Ukrainian side is appalling, and it is way over time for the fighting to stop. That is how wars really end: in surrender, or in the US case as in Vietnam and Afghanistan, by abandonment.

Finally, Gillespie thinks we should know by how much and when military spending would “increase.” Its ‘Buy American” time again, with some US politicians skiting about how the war has been good for America. Interestingly, what this war has revealed is how poor the US equipment is compared to Russia’s. The US military have just announced that they are revisiting development of the M1 Abrams tank. It’s too  heavy. Australia recently bought a hundred or so of an earlier version; one wondered where they were going to be used and how they were going to be transported there. Now they are obsolete, They only cost A$2.5 billion for tanks and support vehicles. Earlier tanks have never been used in battle.

This election campaign has rightly focused on cost of living issues, and economic policy. The last thing we need is more money wasted on expensive weaponry.

I do however absolutely agree with Dr Gillespie that New Zealand’s foreign policy needs some really serious debate. But it should not be held in the election bubble.

 

 

 

 

 

7 comments on “Wither Foreign Policy? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tiger Mountain 1
    5 October 2023 at 10:29 am

    It seems a challenge in 2023 to find an AO/NZ academic or that rare species–public intellectual–that is not in essence a US toady. Honourable mentions of course to the likes of Nicky Hager, Dr David Robie and scores of others labouring away in their particular fields.

    A cascade of factors based on post modernism and neo liberalism for 40 years have led to this type of piece by Dr Gillespie. Academia has purged some independent thinkers in various institutions and Tertiary education is a business churning out business people.

    We need more thinkers, activists and philosophers in the public eye and media channels if AUKUS is to be actually debated, and hopefully given the big swerve.

  2. Sanctuary 2
    5 October 2023 at 10:36 am

    "…That is how wars really end: in surrender…"

    At least you've removed the slightest doubt where you stand now. Genocide is fine, resistance to genocide is a crime.

  3. Dennis Frank 3
    5 October 2023 at 10:58 am

    The academic is demonstrating relevance (not much) but unlikely to get traction if his intent was to resonate with concerned others.

    God loves a trier, however, so it's worth considering the possibility that he is doing God's will. Expecting answers to his questions during this election campaign is a stance reminiscent of Don Quixote.

    When the global arena is populated by a field of clowns, folks will have a natural aversion to taking it seriously. They are right to adopt a sceptical stance, and Al really ought to factor that into his world-view.

  4. Sanctuary 4
    5 October 2023 at 11:35 am

    "…Interestingly, what this war has revealed is how poor the US equipment is compared to Russia’s.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world Western equipment, especially it's modern artillery, is so far superior to Russian kit it is comical. Why on earth would anyone peddle such an easily disproved load of complete bullshit? Talk about underming the credibility of everyone who contributes to this site.

    The US military have just announced that they are revisiting development of the M1 Abrams tank. It’s too heavy. Australia recently bought a hundred or so of an earlier version; one wondered where they were going to be used and how they were going to be transported there. Now they are obsolete, They only cost A$2.5 billion for tanks and support vehicles.

    No sure how this is relevant to anything. As it happens, there is a useful definition of when a weapon is obsolete – "when the cost of protecting a weapon exceeds it's offensive value it becomes obsolete." Foor example, battleships disappeared because the cost of protecting them exceeded the value their big guns brought to naval warfare in the age of aircraft carriers. Tanks are nowhere near this point. Tanks have always been vulnerable – the Soviet Union lost 21,000 tanks and self-propelled guns in 1941, 15,000 in 1942, 23,500 in 1943, 23,700 in 1944, and up to May 1945 13,700. The US Army in Europe in WW2 lost on average – just tanks – 390 tanks a month between D day and May 1945. That doesn’t include Allied tanks or self-propelled guns.

    However, it is good to know that resident military expert Mike Smith (who probably couldn't tell the difference between a badly drawn picture of a rock and a tank) has declared the tank obsolete.

    Earlier tanks have never been used in battle…"

    M1 tanks saw action in both Gulf Wars, where they had outstanding success against Soviet-era tank designs, and in Yemen war by Saudi Arabia. The US Army is not scrapping the MBT, rather the current M1 tank design has probably reached the end of it's development life – the basic design concept harks back to 1971 – and a new sheet of paper is required.

  5. SPC 5
    5 October 2023 at 1:33 pm

    Will New Zealand join AUKUS Pillar 2 he asks? It is supposed to be about access to technology, but nobody really knows. And will it be the best technology?

    AUKUS Pillar 2

    https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/aukus-explained-how-will-trilateral-pact-shape-indo-pacific-security

    Inter-operability would be compromised longer term if not part of pillar 2 – a sort of tech version of Five Eyes (a form of collective to enable research/applied research/standardised roll out).

    https://thediplomat.com/2023/04/for-new-zealand-the-benefits-of-joining-aukus-pillar-ii-outweigh-the-costs/

    https://thediplomat.com/2023/04/the-strategic-case-for-new-zealand-to-join-aukus/

  6. SPC 6
    5 October 2023 at 1:39 pm

    Gillespie would like to know if New Zealand would join in if the US provokes a civil war in China over Taiwan, which we say officially is part of it?

    It would either take Taiwan to declare indepondence or for China to make a formal objection to any continuation of weapons supply. The latter is more likely, but not before the west becomes less reliant on Taiwan's chip supply.

    Australia looks like being the US proxy in this one, and they are our only ally. It is only some officials, media and academics who are in support of us joining in such a war, and they will not be involved in any fight. Chris Hipkins has said that New Zealand’s approach should be diplomatic, and this is supported by Greens and Te Pati Maori. It makes absolute sense.

    Sure our quiet word to Beijing is we have no intention of being involved in a fight over Taiwan, but have obligations as per Oz and would hope that there would be no spill over to any attacks on Oz itself.

    Thus our contribution would be diplomatic (to prevent a conflict).

  7. Scud 7
    5 October 2023 at 10:04 pm

    What a complete load of Bollocks!

    The M1 Abrams that Australia has brought have just completed two concurrent overseas Exercises after EX TS23.

    The Townsville based 2nd Cav Regt deployed along with the 3Bde Amphibious Ready Group to Philippines to exercise with the Philippine Marines & USMC. 2 CAV conducted an over beach landing against an opposing force, which is something that no RAAC Unit has since WW2 and that was under fire against the Japs in PNG! Also this was the first time that a RAAC Tank unit of any size had deployed overseas since Vietnam, when old Harry Holt deployed a C SQN of 1 Armd Regt to Vietnam.

    While 2 CAV Regt was in the Philippines, 1 Armd Regt deployed to Indonesia with 9 Brigade as of part of Regular & Reserve Brigade Battle Group from the Adelaide Region. They exercise with the Indonesian Leo2's. Unlike 3 BDE, 9Bde used commercial merchant shipping to validate it's mobilisation planning to use merchant shipping services.

    Yes the M1 Abrams is pain in the ass to move by road, but tell me what oversize load isn't a pain in the ass to move by road?

    Thence the Australian Army have a fleet of Standard Gauge & now Narrow Gauge (3ft 6in) for Queensland flat decks to move the M1's, but unfortunately they are under a PPP 😂.

    As your call saying the Tank is outdated? Well Mike, that is a complete load of Bollocks!

    If you are basing your observations on the Ukrainian War?

    And as I've said here on The Standard & over at Bomber's Site. If used those Russian Armoured Tactics during my time in the RNZAC (NZ Scots or a A SQN QAMR) or during my at the School of Armour! I would be told to get out of the Corp if a re-education camp wasn't suitable or at the School of Armour an automatic RTU! If you were an Officer? More likely to be Cashier out of the Army!

    The Ukrainian's on the other hand are operating with share bloody mindiness to that of the British & Polish Armoured Corps in the early stages of WW2, which we all know didn't actually get them very far. But now have adapted their style of Combined Arms Training to their style of Fighting and it is now slowly paying dividends which is unlike the more Western traditional style of Armoured Warfare that we are use to seeing of the past.

    But when old Tankies like me start digging back through our old standard operating procedures (SOP's) & tables of establishments (TOE's) on how to break in & fight through prepared defensive lines. The Ukrainian Army & Armoured Tactics are on par with what we would expect IRT to our losses and time expectancy if we were fighting in similar circumstances. But there is one caveat to this and the Ukrainian's have bugger all Air Support/ Air superiority over the Battlefield, which means they are heavily reliant on its Artillery & UAV's to attack Russian positions etc which is further help by the stupidity of the Russian Tactics.

    Part 2 to come-