John Armstrong: Closer links with US military come loaded with costs

The white paper recommends that New Zealand's armed forces be reconfigured to make a more effective contribution to American-led military operations in world trouble spots. Photo / Patrick Gower

What better souvenir of her upcoming visit could you give Hillary Clinton than a defence white paper that recommends New Zealand's armed forces be reconfigured to make a more effective contribution to American-led military operations in world trouble spots.

How handy that National's review of defence policy should suddenly surface just two days before the Secretary of State sets foot in this country.

The big question is whether Clinton will restore joint military exercises - axed by Washington after New Zealand's adoption of its anti-nuclear policy in the 1980s.

There are indications that the Wellington Declaration marking Clinton's two-day stopover will not contain any such official assurances that normal business has resumed.

Even so, Clinton will find it hard to ignore the white paper's sentiment.

It is the clearest and strongest statement of the Government's intention to realign foreign and defence policies more closely to traditional allies such as the United States, Britain and Canada.

The white paper goes quite some way towards reshaping the sharp end of the armed forces so that the Defence Force finds it easier to work in American-led ad hoc coalitions of the Afghanistan kind.

The Army will get more front-line soldiers. The number of SAS troops will be boosted. The Anzac frigates will be upgraded.

All this is about "credible combat capacity" so - as Defence Minister Wayne Mapp puts it - New Zealand can contribute "meaningfully" in regional matters and well away from our immediate sphere of interest.

The white paper is far more gung-ho about New Zealand contributing to such operations than Labour was during its nine years in office.

While Labour dressed its policy up by talking of enhancing regional security through means such as diplomacy and mediation, overseas aid and other "peace support" actions, it faced the same fundamental drivers of defence policy, such as preserving close defence relations with an Australia somewhat exasperated by New Zealand's attitude to one-time allies and relatively low spending on its military.

Even there, National's white paper goes further than Labour did by making an explicit commitment that New Zealand would respond immediately to any direct attack on Australia.

But it is the language used in stressing the benefits of being "an engaged, active, and stalwart" partner of the United States where the white paper most radically departs from Labour's stance.

The word "stalwart" implies remaining loyal regardless. You cannot be stalwart and, at the same time, avoid being drawn into adventures like George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. National cannot have it both ways.

The tone and language of the white paper speaks of a Government crossing its own personal Rubicon when it comes to determining the best means of not just defending New Zealand, but our interests in the wider world.