The Dominion-Post yesterday reprinted an article from the Sydney Morning Herald [Reg Req] on how the different speeches given by Australian and New Zealand leaders on Anzac day showed that the countries were moving in very different directions. Despite our common heritage and experiences, we had remarkably different ideas about our role in the world and where we should be going in the future:
New Zealand dreams of itself as a pacifist country that rejects the US alliance, runs down its war-fighting capability and deploys forces only for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes.
IMHO this is an accurate assessment. As a country, we've pretty much rejected war for anything other than self-defence (a prospect we view as unlikely), and we regard the Clausewitzian view that war is an instrument of policy repugnant. Oh, it's true as a description of how nation-states behave - but we've decided that we don't want to behave like that (a decision made easier by the fact that we're a small nation without much ability to project power in our interests anyway).
Backing this up is last week's survey by the Sunday Star-Times showing that while most New Zealanders would resist an actual invasion of New Zealand or Australia, far fewer were willing to fight for anyone else, or for New Zealand's economic interests. Politicaly, this means that the government cannot participate in wars unless they can convince people that it's actually necessary, rather than simply convenient. And I think that's entirely healthy in a democracy.
9 comments:
BTW, if you want to read the SMH article and don't feel like giving your personal information to Australians, try "mediajunkie" / "mediajunkie".
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/01/2005 04:35:00 PM
I would think that the figure given of 81% of NZers who would go to war if Australia was invaded would be reciprocated.
Hypothetical: Whose side would the Aborigines be on?
Posted by Bomber : 5/01/2005 04:52:00 PM
It does indicate that NZ takes a selfish attitude towards war - for example if some random asian country decided to purge NZ of life would we call on other countries to help us? Would we continue to ask for help if hte UN was in stalemate (possibly because a major power was the one proposing we be exterminated)?
If we would then we should be willing to help others in the same situation (depending on the case of course).
Of course most small nations dont look at it that way - since their action probably dont make a difference individually they see there being no point them contributing.
Posted by Genius : 5/01/2005 05:52:00 PM
Genius: Sadly true, our record on East Timor, West Papua and the Solomons is shocking and that's just in our own neighbourhood. We provided largely secretarial support for a Bouganville peace process - but that was strictly light-lifting. We love to pat ourselves on the back over this stuff but under any scrutiny it doesn't bear up.
The NZ media's self-contgratulatory smugness over our contribution to the Solomon's was a case study.
They assumed we were the ones leading it. Fact was the Aussies dragged us in because, to paraphrase Phil Goff: Unless they put themselves into a situation where they won't need any help, then we won't help them. This was despite the Solomon's government and other parties pleading with us to help - but of course they did not understand MFAT's Pacific Policy: We can only help you out of a spiralling genocide and anarchy if you can guarantee the personal security of 6-8 unarmed policemen. Hopeless, utterly hopeless.
Posted by Bomber : 5/01/2005 07:01:00 PM
Genius: Sadly true, our record on East Timor, West Papua and the Solomons is shocking and that's just in our own neighbourhood. We provided largely secretarial support for a Bouganville peace process - but that was strictly light-lifting. We love to pat ourselves on the back over this stuff but under any scrutiny it doesn't bear up.
The NZ media's self-contgratulatory smugness over our contribution to the Solomon's was a case study.
They assumed we were the ones leading it. Fact was the Aussies dragged us in because, to paraphrase Phil Goff: Unless they put themselves into a situation where they won't need any help, then we won't help them. This was despite the Solomon's government and other parties pleading with us to help - but of course they did not understand MFAT's Pacific Policy: We can only help you out of a spiralling genocide and anarchy if you can guarantee the personal security of 6-8 unarmed policemen. Hopeless, utterly hopeless.
Posted by Bomber : 5/01/2005 07:03:00 PM
Surely, it's better to ask whether our national interests are more likely to be adversely affected by military action outside New Zealand, and to what extent our defence force should be able to respond, rather than the remote possibility that the yellow peril will invade our green shores.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/02/2005 11:23:00 AM
"They see themselves as a country located in the South Pacific with a great and powerful Australia to their west..." Dibb says.
In your feverish dreams, mate! Most of us think of Australia as a big layer of blubber screening us off from potential attackers. By the time they get through you guys, the Yanks (ie, the actual great and powerful types)will have woken up to a threat to their hegemony in the Pacific and be dealing with it.
I guess there's nothing better to expect from people who see glory in participating in a failed invasion of Turkey, a country that never had so much as a bad word for Aus or NZ.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/02/2005 04:49:00 PM
> there would be a likely chain of events.
Che - I know that - but it is irrelevant. your argument is basically "we are fairly safe at the moment so we can freeload" Exactly the point I was making.
Strangely you seem to be repeating my points nd thinking your disagreeing with me.
> Surely, it's better to ask whether our national interests
Thge sad thing is that a small countries national interests are generally speaking to deal with the devil and god equally. If the devil is in your neighbourhood the devil is your ally.
Posted by Genius : 5/02/2005 07:16:00 PM
> genius, well, no, not at all. what i said was that the argument "we need to be armed to the teeth to repel the (mythical) asian invaders" is pure fantasy.
I of course was not making that point. We dont stand a snowballs chance in hell of defeating a major super power in a field battle. Surprised you would think anyone would suggest that.
I actually would take a totally different strategy to defending NZ. defending NZ against a strong opponent would be a terrorist operation. Any other operation by NZ is likely to be fufilling an obligation to the world as a country with morals.
> and worry about arming ourselves to the teeth if we actually need to. and when do we need to?
My point (which maybe I still havent made clearly enough) is that that is a very selfish approach. One you can expect from a small country because small countries have the luxury of being very selfish.
We would probably be helped by our allies but we dont want to reciprocate.
> abrams tanks don't prevent terrorism.
Yes, terrorism is usually defeated by police type opression (e.g. in comunist russia/china) or by retaliatory terrorism (e.g. a little further back in history).
Posted by Genius : 5/03/2005 08:08:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).