Global Freeloaders

The Follies of New Zealand's "Defence" Policies

New Zealand's history as a non-aligned nation lasted about a nano-second--and even then existed only in the imaginations of a few peace-niks.  New Zealand has never been non-aligned.  It has always relied upon other nations to defend itself.  Relying upon other nations requires alignment.

Our unwillingness to take responsibility for the defence of the country is one of the most shameful aspects of our national life.  Relying upon other nations to come to our defence if attacked is a dereliction of fundamental government responsibilities; it also is an indictment upon the citizenry.  We are global free-loaders.

New Zealanders and their politicians maintain an unjustified pride in the false narrative that we "punch above our weight" in global affairs.  We don't.  The most fundamental duty of a state government is that it defend its citizens against armed aggression from other states and random malefactors.  In this sacred duty, successive New Zealand governments have failed.  Instead we have chosen the cheap option--all the while congratulating ourselves on how clever and cunning we have been. 

For well over a century or more, New Zealand has relied upon "others" to defend our shores.  Ironically this has resulted in our soldiers and military going to war to assist other nations--with which we have become aligned by means of mutual defence treaties.
  Our mutual defence pacts with the United States and Australia (ANZUS) led us into combat in Vietnam.  Our defence arrangements with the United Kingdom led us into combat in Malaysia.  We have more recently deployed our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Most recently, the United States will likely request (and expect) that New Zealand will deploy military capability to join with it to defeat ISIS in Arabia and the Middle East.

In all these military interventions, New Zealand is not "punching above its weight", but paying the cost of successively taking the cheap and soft option not to take responsibility for our own national defence.  The reality is that our country is not under any clear and present danger from ISIS or other Islamic terrorists at this time.  There is a general threat to be sure, but no-one is yet calling for the beheading of New Zealanders.  It may come, but not yet.  The danger is neither clear, nor present, for New Zealand at this time.

In that light, the cautionary notes sounded by Andrea Vance recently are salutary.  

Prime Minister John Key indicated he is taking advice on what role New Zealand will play in the multi-national anti-ISIS coalition. . . .  One option on the table is to send in SAS troops to fight militants. Key said this is his "least preferred option." But he admitted that should New Zealand's support move beyond humanitarian to a deployment, it will not go before Parliament for a vote.


The British Parliament was recalled for an emergency vote to sanction air strikes. The Conservative Government won by a majority of 481. A year earlier, MPs voted against joining a US-led intervention in Syria, leading US President to abandon the mission. The Turkish Parliament in Ankara voted in favour of cross-border military involvement on Thursday. It previously rejected action for fear of putting hostages at risk.  In contrast, the Australian Parliament was told on Wednesday that aircraft began flying over Iraq to support allied operations. A final decision to commit forces will not be made until a formal invitation comes from Iraq.

Here is where the reckless danger emerges of having a defence policy which depends upon allies for its execution.  Because those upon whom we rely to defend our shores (Australia and the United States) are involved, we--to maintain the integrity of that policy--will likely also become involved or otherwise risk leaving the country undefended and truly weak--as it actually is.  We would risk the security blanket provided by others being torn away.  The cheap defence option is actually most risky and costly in another sense.  It exposes us involuntarily to participating in the wars of other nations.  This risk is particularly acute when one of those upon whom we rely is the most bellicose nation upon the earth, which has deployed its military and been involved in armed conflict somewhere in the globe every year since the Korean War began.  Vance writes:

New Zealand faces a tough choice. Stand by impotently as many more hostages are murdered by a network of death? Or join another US-led crusade in a Muslim country?   With one foot in the West and one in the East, and vying for a seat on the UN Security Council, it must be remembered that not all nations choose the US as their global policeman.


In the last two decades, Iraq has not been far off the military radar. Military intervention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction was built on a fallacy, years of slaughter failed to remove the threat of terrorism or install democracy.  The conflict in Afghanistan also saw mission creep. Initial action was targeted at taking out Osama Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda, but became a protracted quest to implement democracy and destroy the Taleban. Key admitted New Zealand paid a ''heavy price'' - the death of 10 soldiers.


The latest strikes on Iraq have been condemned worldwide for lacking strategy and tactics. All the warning signs are that taking on ISIS will be a long, bloody war, with complex and unpredictable consequences.  At the very least all this is worthy of a parliamentary debate.

New Zealand is now caught in a trap of its own devising.  From the time of the 60's onwards, successive New Zealand governments have failed to instil in our citizens the duty of defending the country.  The people have consequently been unwilling to pay the price--both personally and collectively--to provide for our defence.  We have taken the "cheap" option of relying upon others.

It has been a craven policy, too clever by half.  We are now being made to experience the hidden costs of "punching above our weight".