By Chris Trotter*
A small country has limited options when it comes to defending itself. Either it places its security in the hands of a larger power and reconciles itself to a foreign affairs and defence policy circumscribed by obedience, or it learns to think.
New Zealand, a very small country for most of its history opted to obey.
Israel chose to think.
Many would reject that claim, arguing that Israel has always been able to count on the support and protection of the United States, the largest of all the large powers.
The counterargument would describe the ways in which the Israelis turned their best minds, along with those of the Jewish diaspora, to persuading the American political class that even at the cost of alienating virtually every other Middle-Eastern power, the survival of the State of Israel constitutes a moral and strategic responsibility from which the United States cannot turn away.
Onto the scales of American judgement the Israelis and their co-religionists around the world piled the enormous moral weight of the Holocaust, along with the eschatological obsessions of America’s evangelical Christian churches. (Only when the Jews have been returned safely to Zion can the End Times begin!)
To these emotive appeals they added the plain fact that Israel’s enemies were the friends of America’s enemies. By making Israel its special friend, the USA would be placing the enemies of both nations at a strategic disadvantage.
The Israelis were also confident that where the USA led, the rest of the West would follow. By forging a till-death-us-do-part relationship with the United States, Israel could secure the diplomatic and military support of many others.
Israel’s foreign and defence policy did not come without cost. Over and over again the Jewish state was forced to fight but, with the exception of the Suez Crisis of 1956, it was never forced to obey.
Even in the case of Suez, Israel’s deference to the wishes of the Americans did not bring the crushing humiliations which US President Dwight Eisenhower imposed upon the British and the French. For the latter, Suez marked the end of independent imperial adventures. Israel’s were just beginning.
On balance, its obedience to the United States, and before that to the United Kingdom, has not served New Zealand well.
By folding itself into the strategic and tactical plans of its protectors New Zealand lost any capacity to act independently in defence of its own interests. Seen from this perspective, Michael Joseph Savage’s 1939 avowal of New Zealand’s automatic support for Britain and her empire: “where she stands, we stand; where she goes, we go”; may be read as a frank admission of its strategic impotence.
In the end, and in spite of the blood sacrifice offered up to Britain in the First World War, Australia and New Zealand were more or less abandoned by their imperial protector. Winston Churchill dispatched a couple of battleships, which the Japanese promptly sank. After that, if the Americans failed to save them, then the Aussies and the Kiwis would be on their own.
The American naval victory over Japan at Midway, left Australia and New Zealand deeply indebted to the United States. Loyalty to the British Empire and Commonwealth lingered, but the political leadership of Australasia knew that, militarily-speaking, British power was fast ebbing away. The defence pact signed by Australia and New Zealand in 1951 was with the US not the UK.
Historically, it is the New Zealand Labour Party that has calculated most accurately the diplomatic, military and moral costs of trading New Zealand’s independence of action for superpower protection.
Beginning with Peter Fraser, who spoke up forcefully for the rights of small nations at the 1945 conference that established the United Nations, and continuing under Norman Kirk (Vietnam) David Lange (nuclear weapons) and Helen Clark (Iraq) Labour prime ministers have chafed under American suzerainty.
The intractable problem encountered by all of them was the strength of the structures linking New Zealand to the Americans, the British, and the Australians.
Historically, the country’s national security, foreign affairs and defence personnel have proved to be bound much more tightly to their allied counterparts than they are to errant Labour governments with dangerous dreams of fashioning an “independent foreign policy”.
The other tie that binds is New Zealand’s commitment to “interoperability” with the weapons and systems of its “very, very, very good friends”.
The arms purchased by New Zealand from its “defence partners” render it acutely vulnerable. Any significant disagreement with the nation/s supplying New Zealand with the weapons it requires will raise serious questions about resupply, repair and reequipment. Ammunition, spare parts, systems upgrades: all are dependent on keeping the goodwill of the nations that manufacture them.
A country that cannot rely upon the loyalty of its diplomats, military officers, and intelligence personnel, and whose military purchases are sourced from a strictly limited number of suppliers, cannot hope to run an independent foreign policy.
Obedience may be secured by love, or by threats. Most commonly, however, it is secured by a mixture of the two.
A New Zealand that decided to defend itself by the acuity of its thinking would begin the process by identifying the principal sources of its people’s economic security.
Accordingly, New Zealand’s first priority would be maintaining the best possible relations with Australia and China.
In the alarming context of a United States thrashing about recklessly in an increasingly costly attempt to reassert the global hegemony it enjoyed for the brief period that separated the fall of the Soviet Union from the full emergence, economically and militarily, of the Peoples Republic of China, is that achievable?
It is, if a clear-thinking New Zealand repositions itself diplomatically and militarily to take full advantage of an Indo-Pacific region which, following President Donald Trump’s criminal derangement of global energy markets, is fast becoming less – not more – beholden to the United States.
That repositioning would require a radical reconfiguration of New Zealand’s armed forces to take full advantage of the country’s growing domestic capacity in marine design and manufacture, rocketry, and drones?
It would entail a decisive strategic shift towards bolstering the security of the small island states of the South Pacific, especially in relation to the protection of their exclusive economic zones and the elimination of illegal drug trafficking in their waters.
It would make the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan into the PRC a key objective of New Zealand diplomacy? One which New Zealand’s genuinely independent foreign policy and its lack of alienating military entanglements might persuade larger powers to look upon it as an honest broker?
If Israel could think its way into regional hegemony by mastering the arts of diplomatic manipulation and war, why shouldn’t New Zealand promote its own and the South Pacific’s regional security by mastering the arts of peace?
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
48 Comments
Mastering the arts of peace is predicated on rule governed international systems to manage conflict.
Those seems to be well down the road to failing and being replaced by individual country's management of national interests.
So: what do we produce, or what strategic advantage does our location give us, that would give us any leverage on other's behaviour?
What are your thoughts/possibilities to resolve the questions you pose?
I don't have any answers, but I do think any solutions need to be shaped by a reassessment of our importance in whatever world order drops out of the current chaos, which will likely mean we need to stop behaving like we matter in the grand scheme of things.
Leading up to WW1 NZ strengthened its relationship and dependence on the UK with the purchase of HMS New Zealand (not HMNZS) a battlecruiser. NZ was left exposed to the Japanese sweeping south in 1941 until the Australians in New Guinea and the Americans, the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal stopped them. NZ is still not able to defend itself and never will be and therefore must ally itself with those that would be prepared to do so.
The ability to defend oneself has become exponentially cheaper with the advent of drone warfare, as Iran holding off the greatest (most expensive) military the world has ever known shows.
Iran is making clever use of its strategic position and natural geography. It has neighbours to attack tactically but it hasn’t hit any warships parked over the horizon. NZ is isolated and fair game from 200kms. Hence the flurry of excitement and worry about a modest Chinese flotilla recently in the Tasman Sea’s international waters. Was there or wasn’t there a nuke sub as part of it.
And why is the US sitting "over the horizon"?
Palmtree. Indeed. We are likely witnessing the same closing chapter for carriers that was written for battleships over the first half of the 20th century. Back then it was aircraft ushering in a new dawn of vulnerability, drones are their modern equivalent. Similarly with Russias invasion of Ukraine where tanks ruling the battlefield is being exposed as a myth.
Automomous drone swarms are where we're headed apparently. With nano tech you might not even see what is killing you?
Blimey Pt8 any junior naval officers first lesson is if you can hit from your range then there is no need to risk getting within their range. There have been some notable ill fated exceptions such as the German pocket battleship Graf Spee and from all accounts HMAS Sydney.
I wouldn't say it was 'holding off' when the Americans have been limiting the use of their heaviest, but more indiscriminate, weapons, like massed use of the strategic bomber fleet or coastal bombardment vessels.
The results of that would be the sort of death and destruction levels seen in Iraq or Vietnam.
Are you saying NZ is under threat from US stragegic bombing? And yes, drones/mines have shown that the worlds largest carrier fleet is largely useless in this instance. As the second armies' attempts at imperial expansion have also shown elsewhere. Iran holds the cards and Diesel is $3.20 in NZ.
NZ doesn't need the biggest array of military hardware, it just needs enough of the right gear to make any aggression towards us unpleasant! Any assault against us is always going to be naval.
The threat is political, the capability is real. A couple of years ago the USAF sent a B52 to fly the flag for the Masterton air show Wings Over Wairarapa. It flew direct from Guam, and then went on to Aussie to land there.
Piss DJT off enough and there'd likely be crews prepared to do as their CiC commands, even if it meant dropping bombs on us!
How likely is that? Be realistic.
How likely was it for Trump to start a war with Iran? Who really knows? Yes I'd like to say it is extremely unlikely to impossible, but low risk is not no risk.
How about this possibility; A new party, or a revamped old one, comes into power. Historic alliances get canned. The way money is managed is turned on its head, recognising the reality of how it actually works. Old trading treaties are canned and new ones offered which do not sacrifice NZ's sovereignty to ANYONE. NZ manufacturing is rebuilt supported by a revamped tax system. Our defence forces are rebuilt with a mix of conventional and unconventional systems. NZ First is the catch phrase. How do you think Trump would react?
You can't insure against every ultra low risk scenario though. As long as NZ never manages to find an economic oil deposit we're unlikely to be under the gaze of Sauron.
As far as Trump starting war with Iran? I'd say quite likely actually. He was looking for aggression towards Iran from when he cancelled the Nuclear deal in 2018, proded by Israel? Remember this was supposed to be a Maduro type hit, leading to regime change to a government that would respond to some US cash for favours. Mission creep is the result of the stable genius and his team of yes men finding out an inflated ego isn't the same trait as intelligence.
Of course an invasion of NZ would be seaboard that was identified by the tactical investment way back as above HMS New Zealand. It is a very big coast line too for a small country. Given allies as they presently stand any force would have to have cleared its way first through them and through the Sth Pacific and by the time it got here would unlikely to be in any mood to muck around. It is highly improbable that whatever defence NZ could muster on its own would stand in their way for any length of time.
FG. Agree with your sentiments about tiny NZs ability to defend itself. And in a progressively widening northern hemisphere war any NZ naval assets would be deployed ( and probably expended ) in distant theatres. Which is what happened with HMS NZ. A little bit of trivia is that she was regarded as a 'lucky' ship, partly attributed by some crew to the captain wearing a Maori pendant when going into battle. It was claimed she achieved the highest rate of fire of the British battle cruiser fleet and inflicted serious damage on the enemy during the three pivotal North Sea battles.
There was too a Maori cloak for the captains and worn with great respect and understanding during the engagements. If I recall correctly it made its way back to NZ and is now at the navy museum in Auckland. Now that is something I need to visit while I still can..
Palmtree08: where did that come from? The current discussion is Iran.
So far the US hasn't gone after the civilian water, power, transport, industrial and telecommunications networks wholesale, other than for military ends, using drones and aircraft on essentially tactical missions. If the B-52, B-1 and B-2 fleets began shutting down the ability of the country to function via area bombing (guided or not), the destruction would be hard to imagine.
And while a country only needs to be too tough a pill to swallow in relation to its value to another, Iran floats on a sea of oil that is sold to competitors to the US and those who share its interests.
To return to your original point: I wonder what would happen to NZ if oil was prospected for, and found in Antarctica? A possibility as a rules based order breaks down. I'd imagine we'd be subsumed as a staging base for an interest group, and more likely by the promise of prosperity rather than arms.
Not sure what from where you are responding to but there needs to be a rather serious consideration to the plight of the Iranian people.They are existing in a world alien to our consideration of normal life. Prison, torture and execution for transgressions scaled by a persecutory justice system. Already deprived of essential day to day living provisions and cities, as in Tehran with seriously compromised water supply.There are 70 million Iranians to consider before essential societal services, transport hubs, power etc are also taken from them by force. Think humanitarianism for a moment.
Well said Foxy. Their prior and any new government is not likely to provide much of those essentials without excessive demands. Opposition to the ruling regime begets a death penalty on falsified charges, and false confessions extorted through torture. Changing that though will not by any measure, be easy.
Don’t think the people of Iran foresaw their predicament today anymore than the Russians who followed the Bolsheviks for instance.In ether case what was displaced was oppressive, subjugating and plain inequitable for the large percentage of the inherent society. However instead, civil liberties, freedom of expression and human rights have turned out to be hardly improved. The Taliban is another example.
So true. I think history generally teaches any regime or government over thrown by force is replaced by some form of tyranny, no matter the cloak it tries to cover itself with. I have always thought the UN was an opportunity to drive democratic governments, by to all intents it is toothless and undermined by the veto votes.
TG. Yes, bold predictions from some following Iran successfully striking static targets, a few at considerable range. Few note the comparatively limited damage done. Psychologically distressing for sure but as for serious tactical damage, negligible, so far anyway. One analysis showed that if 100% of all the missiles Iran had at its disposal successfully reached their target, the total payload delivered would be equivalent to around 40% of one average WW2 bombing raid to Germany. The US Israel claim that 80-90% are being intercepted.
Historically, I agree to a point. NZ contributed in the ww2 Pacific theatre. And those efforts, combined Allied forces, avoided a direct attack on NZ by the Japanese. Australia on the other hand, did suffer direct attack with more Japanese bombs dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbour. Sparrow force in Timor (combination of Australian forces plus Timorese and Portugese) prevevented, (for about 2 years) Japanese forces reaching the South coast of Timor. If the Japanese had reached the south coast they would have had an attack launch base 300km from the Australian mainland, with no mountain ranges in between.
So there is a chronological element to consider re NZ being attacked or not. It can only be conjecture as to how the conflict would have unfolded if NZ had been attacked.
Lou. While very damaging the Darwin bombing was largely symbolic. The Japanese military was fully committed in new guinea and was in no position to mount a land invasion of Australia, let alone NZ. The Coral sea battle a few months later seriously degraded its naval capability and Midway after that sealed Japans fate, its defeat now inevitable.
Its a question of timing (and probably over confident rapid advances that stretched supply lines). My understanding is that the landing of Japanese forces on the north coast of Timor and the bombing of Darwin preceded Australian engagement in New Guinea. And that Sparrow force action pinning down Japanese forces to the North Coast, permitted Australia to then engage in New Guinea.
For the record, once Australia removed Sparrow force from Timor, to be relocated to other theatres, the Japanese, while incapable of continuing their advance South onto Australian shores, carried out extensive retribution against the Timorese people, eliminating 10% of the population if i recall correctly.
Lou. Yes you are correct that the big engagements in NG, Kokoda etc, are a few months after the Darwin bombing, so not fully accurate to attribute all of the overextension of Japanese forces to NG combat. But the generally accepted view is that maintaining momentum by invading Australia was by then beyond Japanese logistical capacity, given extreme length of supply lines and need to maintain combat capacity in NG to face the onslaught they knew was coming from Australian and US forces. The desperately brutal Japanese actions in Timor were regrettably typical.
Thank you Middleman
Without specifically saying it CT invokes Thucydide's aphorism that PM Mark Carney cited at Davos; "That the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.
But thinking and being able to act is a presumption on the continuance of rules based order. Something that Trump has thoroughly tossed into the trash can.
Foxy, and many others are correct in that NZ cannot [fully] defend itself. I add the word 'fully' because that is what they are saying. NZ can defend itself (think what the Viet Minh did in Viet Nam), it just might not be effective against a major power. The entire nature of war has been changed irrevocably by recent conflicts that have proven that asymmetry is not a disqualifier. That is not to say conventional, mainstream weapons systems are no longer useful, and in our case can be used to project other systems further out.
But then CT goes on to say "It would make the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan into the PRC a key objective of New Zealand diplomacy?" This is a matter for the Taiwanese people to choose, not for us as a nation to comment on. China is not a democracy. If we are to promote democracy and freedom, then how could we possibly support a reintegration that is not the popular choice of the people?
If we choose to think, those thoughts must be fully considered.
Trotter is right about thinking, perhaps a tad naive re peace.
With 8 billion on a planet capable of supporting 1-2 billion long-term, there is unlikely to be peace until that reconciliation is complete (and maybe not even then. Can we fight symmetrically? No. So asymmetrically is the answer, should we choose to act.
But logic tells us the game will be played by the major players, on the major playing-fields. We should perhaps indulge in an old strategy - that of waiting until the eventual victor becomes obvious, then make sure we're in the crowning photo-shoot.
But I suspect the post-conflict world will not be global in relationships. More local. Friction is less likely to be inter-national, more likely inter-tribal/groupal.
It comes back to what our history lessons explained re the balance of power and deterrence. RIght now Iran is evidencing quite some ability concerning the latter. Hurt us and we will hurt back with whatever we have to our advantage. Seventy or so years ago President Eisenhower foresaw the new direction when he removed the bulk of America’s strike ability from the Strategic Air Command and place it instead with the nuclear submarines. America now has more of these than the rest of the world put together, whereabouts undisclosed. That is why Australia, Sth Korea and likely Japan , and even Taiwan and Singapore will so equip themselves. The ability of a counterattack is one of the very first elements any aggressor needs to well consider.
They had those submarines during Vietnam and both Iraqs.
MAD - but it only takes one 'side' for the 'mutual' to be triggered. That's the problem with nukes.
Messrs George & Kubrick aptly addressed the dark elements of that potential just by the title alone , Dr Strangelove.
FG. Suggest too soon to call it on Irans deterrence capability. A Hormuz standoff for now but the game only part way though. The US is likely preparing to seize and temporarily hold a relatively small area of coastline bordering the strait, denying it to Iran as a platform for short range missile launching.
That means body bags for the "stopped xx wars" president. Even the MAGA cult may notice when their sons and daughters start turning up to solemn POTUS baseball cap wearing ceremonies? For a president planning to subvert the mid terms and create the United States of Trumptm dynastic empire, that could be a terminal blow?
Yep, body bags it will be. How many is the question and what is the US public tolerance level. Hopefully even Trump will realise this cannot be another Afghanistan style protracted ground war.
For 20+ years East Timorese fought a resistance war against Indonesia. Indonesia occupied East Timor only weeks after it gained independence from Portugal in 1974. Massive cost in Timorese lives lost. But persistence locally, coupled with very late to the party, international pressure on Indonesia ultimately lead to independence restored.
Ironically Australia supported the Indonesian occupation from the get go - because it could then get it's hands on pretty much all the oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea.
Lou. Yep, as the prophets of doom on this site endlessly remind us, it's always about energy. Indonesia seizing effective control of western Papua receives very little attention or commentary. Vast mining operations owned by international companies such as US giant Freeport mining no doubt play a conversation stifling role.
I recall recently listening to an Australian military strategist (name cannot recall) who advocated a variation of the 'porcupine strategy' for Australia rather than its current given its geography/location. It seemed to me to be equally applicable to NZ.
It could be largely achieved using domestically generated weapons/systems and would lessen the need for exceedingly expensive and vulnerable capital items.
Iran is a current example of its use.
Kiwi courage and tenacity in war is well proven and unquestionable. But aside from the land wars, all those conflicts that NZ has been part of, have been fought on foreign soil and oceans far from our shores.
NZ has not been tested on it's own soil. Timor Leste (East Timor) is a salutary example of the suffering an indigenous population will endure to gain and maintain independence.
Would ordinary Kiwis take up arms and commit to repel invaders and or engage in a protracted resistance war should NZ be attacked?
I guess we won't know until it happens.
The invasion is already underway. Soft power projection to achieve strategic footholds in the pacific has over recent decades ramped up to levels the great unwashed have little idea of. You don't have to travel all that far north from here to see it in action. The battlefield for coming physical conflict over residual resources is being shaped.
...the survival of the State of Israel constitutes a moral and strategic responsibility from which the United States cannot turn away
That's because the US Jewish community has its fingers in every single pie in US society. Government, business, education, you name it. The US signed up to eternal Israeli support after the conclusion of WWII. Well beyond the point of no return.
Mike, yep, there is a widespread enduring moral/religious commitment but I suggest Israel as a ME power projection proxy also serves US secular strategic interests very well.
By the time this Iran war is over, Israel, which according to Marc Rubio started it, may be loathed by most of the US population (apart from evangelicals with eschatological obsessions), and by most countries around the world. Shall we see the end of Israel? That may be the only hope of world peace.
Having watched several vox pops from the US I suspect your hope is ill founded....the support for the attack on Iran in the US is greater than you would imagine, and the connection with Israel appears ignored
That is the beauty of America’s situation. Since 1812, no foreign military boots have set foot on its shores save for the Alamo. Aerially Hawaii got hit once, and the mainland, ineffectual ballon bombs and a submarine salvo on the West Coast. Americans have not suffered the shock of invasion even though they have participated in the same in Europe and Asia, with or without real justification. In other words they know nothing about being bombed in an actual state of war and for that reason the terrorism attack of 911 left much of the nation dumbstruck on one hand and over reactive on the other. There are very obvious incentives to complacency and insularism in such circumstances.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.