Editorial: NZ seen as wimp of the region

It is nice to be liked, and being hated is tolerable when you are standing by a principle. There can be few barbs more hurtful, however, than to be called "irrelevant". It means your views don't count for anything. No one notices when you walk into the room or when you leave. In short, you do not matter. This week New Zealand received a blunt message: in terms of Asia-Pacific security it is irrelevant.

The verdict came not from one quarter but two. A distinguished Indian academic and a veteran Australian journalist both concluded, in a conference in Wellington on international security, that this country did not figure on the radar of countries in the region because it lacked the ability to project any credible presence. At best, we might have a role as an inoffensive, honest broker that could bring more important parties together.

Neither Professor Raja Mohan nor Geoffrey Barker pulled their punches. The former described us as a nation of dreamy, preachy liberals, so rested on the moral laurels of our anachronistic nuclear-free policy that we had effectively opted out of playing any part in the real world. The latter said that by embracing a nuclear-free path and minimal defence spending the country "has basically said it would rather shut up than put up".

Both views are predictable. As a nuclear power - and one that came dangerously close to conflict with its similarly armed neighbour - India can hardly support a nuclear-free policy. Australia has long believed that New Zealand's defence spending is too low, even if Australian defence personnel privately admit that the New Zealand Army is a highly effective partner. And Canberra is closely aligned with the greatest nuclear power, the United States.

Predictability is no good reason, however, for views to be lightly dismissed. If there is a perception among our neighbours that we do not count, we need to be concerned. Broader relations with Asia-Pacific nations require that New Zealand is seen to be a valued participant in the region. Those countries have made no secret of the part that power projection plays in their assessment of a country's worth. Most of them have defence procurement programmes that reinforce their own status in this regard. Combat aircraft and ships are seen as finite examples of "serious" defence capability.

The New Zealand Government has sent a clear message that it does not buy in to the "mine is bigger than yours" school of security assessment. Its approach has been to reinforce the blunt end rather than the sharp end of our defence forces. Transport and communications have high priority, forward strike capability does not.

On Monday the Cabinet is likely to consider the future of Whenuapai Air Base. Having relegated a now toothless RNZAF to a "forward" position 300 kilometres south of Auckland from 2007, it has to decide whether to really turn swords into ploughshears by digging up the base for housing development. If it rejects the plan to retain the base as a commercial airport - with the ability to revert to military use if needed - the deepest furrows will be on the brows of our Asia-Pacific neighbours. Demolition of the base will confirm for them the view, expressed by Professor Mohan, that we have well and truly opted out.