Editorial: Gutting Air Force rash and foolish

Defence is one of the hardest subjects to discuss in times of comparative peace. On the face of it, who cares if the Government wants to do away with an air strike force and replace a frigate with a more multi-purpose ship? These decisions are in line with the idea that peace-keeping contingents and maritime surveillance are the extent of the country's foreseeable defence needs for the next 10 years.

But neither foreign peacekeeping nor fisheries patrols have much to do with defence at all. Peacekeeping missions are a worthy form of international aid but they do little for our national security beyond giving our trained combatants experience in tense situations and, sometimes, the chance to operate alongside those we hope will come to our defence if ever we need them.

Serious discussion of defence has to begin by defining the national interest and identifying the possible threats. This Government has decided that the national interest is largely confined to the South Pacific, and that all we need is the capability to keep watch on the neighbourhood and to get small, better-equipped Army contingents to the islands quickly if the need arises.

The region is just one possible source of instability that might have an impact on this country, and is unlikely to be the most serious. Unrest in the islands could have an impact here in the form of refugees and a burden on the aid budget but it would not pose a threat to our way of life. This is a country far from all of its major markets except Australia and depending heavily on open sea lanes, global stability and access to large, growing economies.

In other words, New Zealand's security interests are practically indistinguishable from those of any well-off trading nation in the world and, in particular, they are identical with the interests of Australia.

The present Government spouts a great deal of arrant nonsense about the two countries' different defence perspectives. Australia is one of our three principal export markets and its proximity makes it easily the most important. Even were it not so, it is inconceivable that any threat to Australia would not be immediately regarded as a threat to this country, too. It is equally inconceivable that New Zealand would take any military action in the Pacific independently of Australia.

The only difference between the defence perspectives of the two countries is that Australia's leaders (Labour and Liberal) believe it is a very good idea to be aligned to the United States and New Zealand's do not.

The announcements in Wellington yesterday are the logical consequences of non-alignment. The Skyhawks and jet trainers, for example, were intended to contribute to balanced land, sea and air forces within the Anzus alliance. In latter years they were probably more valuable for the pilots they produced than for their functions as fighter-bombers in allied formations.

The decision not to replace them will leave the pilots without any jet aircraft and raises the question whether the remaining tasks warrant retaining an Air Force. The service will continue with Hercules transports and helicopters essentially for carrying Army units, and Orions for maritime surveillance, which could be a naval air arm.

The Navy is to get three new vessels for patrolling the exclusive economic zone. And instead of a third Anzac frigate, the Government is looking for an unspecified "multi-purpose ship" - probably something capable of going into Antarctic waters as well as filling the gap left by the sale of the unsuitable troop transporter, the Charles Upham.

This is not the defence force of a country that needs to do its bit for genuine peace and stability in the world it depends upon. It is the product of a belief that peace will only ever be interrupted by isolated problems near or far, and that there is no conceivable direct threat to New Zealand. History tells how suddenly the world can make fools of the complacent.

The Government has decided to dismantle one of the foundations of a balanced military force. One day, when New Zealand returns to the ranks of responsible collective security, we will rue this rash and foolish destruction.