John Armstrong: 'Let's cuddle up to Washington'

Opinion

National's long-awaited defence white paper is a shift away from the stance Labour took towards the armed forces during its decade in office. But it is a shift more in tone and language than overall direction.

The review does not flag any radical changes in how the Army, Navy and Air Force will be equipped. In particular, there is no mention of restoring an Air Force strike capability which was lost when Helen Clark scrapped the Skyhawks.

The white paper is overt about there being occasions when the use of military force is justified. Of note is an explicit commitment that New Zealand would respond to any direct attack on Australia.

But the key difference from Labour's approach - as outlined in the latter party's defence policy framework paper released in 2002 - is the current Government's heavy stress on how New Zealand's security is enhanced by improving bilateral relations with "like-minded" states.

In other words, let's cuddle up to Washington. The review goes as far as saying that New Zealand's security benefits from being an "engaged, active, and stalwart" partner of the United States.

That, of course, comes at a price. The white paper makes it clear that New Zealand is likely to continue to be asked to contribute equipment and personnel to ad hoc coalitions of military forces - be they US-led or United Nations-sanctioned - which are pulled together to sort out some trouble-spot or other.

In fact, the document warns that role may increase as the US looks at reducing international commitments and expects its partners to share more of the "security and stabilisation load"

Labour's initial approach was to place much greater stress on diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping, arms control and providing aid as means of promoting regional security.

Then came September 11, 2001. Within months, New Zealand's SAS troops were Afghanistan-bound to operate alongside American forces. Anzus or not, there was still intense pressure from Washington to contribute.

The one question left unanswered by the document released today is whether National's stance of being a "stalwart" partner of the US would have meant joining the George W Bush-led invasion of Iraq. The word "stalwart" does not leave much wriggle-room.

The blunt truth is that the two major parties' approach to defence policy is determined by such things as American pressure and other factors mostly beyond their control. There is need to work closely with Australia, the need to police a huge exclusive economic zone, the ability to handle natural disasters in the South Pacific, worries about the stability of some South Pacific states, and above all, fiscal constraints.

National's answer to the latter is that it thinks it can find savings of up to $400 million in the Defence Force's budget to help fund upgrading and replacement of equipment.

Just how much it actually gets in savings remains to be seen. But essentially, National has stuck to Labour's approach that it is better the armed forces are equipped to do a few things very well - rather than a lot of things badly.