Steve Hoadley: Defence Force vital in vulnerable land

COMMENT

It is often asserted that our defence forces are too small to defend New Zealand from invasion. Even if this scenario redolent of World War II were still relevant, it is not clear what policy prescriptions it entails.

Peace people such as the Greens use it to argue for the abandonment of any military capacity. They seem to believe that an attack will never come to "our incredibly benign strategic environment" or if it does, we could initiate guerrilla counterattacks from the Coromandel - as envisioned in Karl Stead's novel Smith's Dream, which became the film Sleeping Dogs - while awaiting rescue by the United Nations. Consequently, no taxpayer money should be spent on "toys for the boys".

At the other end of the political spectrum occupied by Act, the policy prescription is to rebuild the forces along the lines New Zealand commanded in the 1940s and 1950s to achieve defence self-sufficiency. This entails doubling the defence budget, re-establishing an air-strike wing, buying another frigate, and strengthening the combat capabilities of all the services.

Both miss the point about the nature of defence in the modern world. New Zealand's vulnerability is real and defence is essential, but achieving security is a multi-dimensional policy, of which military capacity is only one element.

No, New Zealand's mainland won't be invaded. But what about our outlying islands undefended from opportunistic landings? What about our dependencies and partners in the South Pacific so vulnerable to ethnic violence, such as the Solomon Islands? What about our vast exclusive economic zone with its resources so easily poached?

What about our cargo in ships passing through pirate or insurgent-infested straits? What about New Zealanders and their enterprises at risk in a world rendered unsafe by terrorists or civil war? And what about our markets around the globe, which security threats can jeopardise? And what about non-military threats to security posed by criminality, people-smuggling, disease and environmental disaster?

Clearly no expansion of our conventional defence forces can guard against all of these threats. They can be minimised only by interstate co-operation and multifaceted policy responses. But military capability is still needed.

Among liberals there are still those who believe that diplomacy and trade are normal, whereas militaries and alliances are emblems of the failure of diplomacy and trade, hence abnormal. Some believe the existence of our defence establishment and alliances with Western states will lower our standing and trade access, particularly in the Third World.

This is hardly the view of successive ministers of foreign affairs and trade or their officials, who have woven deployments of the Defence Force into their policies as they interacted with counterparts in other countries and international organisations. Some examples:

* Since 1971 our military exercises with Singapore and Malaysia in the Five Power Defence Arrangements, and defence aid to other Asian and Pacific states, have been valued strands in bilateral and regional relations.

* In 1991 New Zealand and Australia bolstered transtasman Closer Economic Relations by formalising Closer Defence Relations, reflecting more than 100 combined military activities.

* The deployment of Air Force transports and medics to the Gulf in 1991 earned a public "thank you" from President Bush.

* Deployments of SAS troops and frigates in the 1990s to embargo Iraq further warmed relations with the United States, culminating in an invitation to the White House for Prime Minister Jim Bolger in 1994 and a visit to Auckland by President Clinton in 1999.

* A contribution of peacekeepers to Bosnia accompanied our election to the Security Council in 1992 and passage of a resolution making harm to peacekeepers a criminal offence, for which New Zealand's team in New York earned much credit.

* The dispatch of peacekeepers to Bougainville, East Timor and the Solomons, and to troublespots in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa in the past two decades has burnished our reputation in the First World and Third World alike as a good international citizen.

* Military contributions to the war on terrorism in Afghanistan earned Helen Clark an invitation to the White House and led to Colin Powell's characterisation of New Zealand as "a very, very, very good friend".

This and a promise of deployment to Iraq have advanced our case for a free-trade pact with the US, according to Trade Minister Jim Sutton.

Since the September 11 attacks the US has requested military and other forms of security help from its allies and friends, and responded warmly to those who have contributed, no matter how little.

Our contribution was hardly "toadying" to the US, as one Herald headline averred. It is in our interest to co-operate militarily with the US - and other governments as well - to combat terrorism, curb interstate and internecine violence, deter aggression and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and control piracy and crime.

New Zealand's deployments to support US policies were decided by a democratically elected sovereign government - just as the no-nuclear-ship-visit policy, antithetical to US interests, was decided in 1985.

Turning a cold shoulder to the US military requests because of alleged flaws in the Bush Administration's foreign or economic policies not only risks denying the benefits of co-operation to New Zealand but also antagonising regional partners who value their relationship with the US. These include Australia and Britain, and also Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and much of the South Pacific.

Consequently, the depressed trajectory of funding and equipping of the Defence Force is not helpful to ministers and officials striving to enhance our diplomatic standing and trade opportunities.

Peacekeeping deployments are commendable but are no substitute for combat training, the purchase of modern, capable and safe equipment, and the ability to sustain alliance relations.

The frequent breakdowns of the Hercules, and the lack of any military transport ship for the next two, three, or even four years, are risible to the Australians. Individual or small-group deployments to multiple theatres do show the New Zealand flag but have been ridiculed abroad as mere military tourism.

The disruption of training, and the low retention rate of personnel in critical skills, will inexorably erode professionalism and reduce human capacity. So far, our service personnel have risen to each new challenge with energy and adaptability, and have impressed their overseas counterparts.

Although our officers have been quarantined from US intelligence, no foreign defence force has yet been unwelcoming to a New Zealand unit coming alongside, not least because an additional flag raises legitimacy in a multilateral world.

But unless the defence budget is raised, the Government must be prepared for more Defence Force breakdowns, incapacities, and exclusions, with consequent jeopardy to our diplomatic status and ability to negotiate economic access to countries in which security is a high priority.

* Steve Hoadley is an associate professor of political studies at Auckland University.