Expert opinion from University of Otago - Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka
Opinion: All up, defence cost us more than $6.7 billion in 2023/24.
There were 14,996 people working for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) at June 2023, while others dealt with procurement and policy in the non-military wing, the Ministry of Defence.
Why does our small, remote country have such a costly defence force? Is this investment rendering it fit for purpose – and in 2024, what is that purpose?
The 2023 Defence Policy and Strategy Statement saw two significant threats: strategic competition, and the impacts of climate change.
In terms of strategic competition, New Zealand’s current enemy has been identified for us by our Five Eyes allies, some of whom are readying for a war to ‘contain’ China. China is our major trading partner, so for New Zealand this is a diplomatic balancing act, not a clear military pathway.
There is a further balancing act. Keeping our once-traditional allies happy about our contribution to their geo-political strategic goals puts at risk our post-Anzus ‘independent foreign policy’, with its Pacific focus. The recent pressures to join the Aukus alliance suggest that our last vestiges of independence may be on the way out.
Our large allies don’t actually need us for their military ventures, but are concerned about the appearance of the Anglosphere sticking together.
In the meantime, what is our military actually doing? Last century, overseas deployments were most often for United Nations-organised peacekeeping. In the past 20 years, our troop deployments were more likely to be led by individual countries (especially the USA) and coalitions, not the UN.
According to the Defence Force’s deployments map, there are up to 95 personnel in Europe, supporting Ukraine, and 63 in the Middle East; that is, pretty much all on the other side of the globe and well away from our neighbourhood. Smaller numbers are deployed elsewhere.
In March some 30 personnel were in California, “re-imagining warfare” with the US military. This meant trying out novel missile drones, new communications systems and the like. Later this year, the NZDF will again take part in RIMPAC – the two-yearly Rim of the Pacific war games led by the US military and supporting US purposes.
Given the pressures around Aukus, perhaps it was no coincidence that New Zealand was chosen to host the RIMPAC Commanders’ conference in February this year.
As well as overseas war games and training, there’s a certain amount of travel for ceremonial purposes. Forty army band players went to Gallipoli for this year’s Anzac Day. Last year they flew to Basel, Switzerland, for a Military Tattoo; in 2022 it was to Edinburgh. The Air Force and Navy have their own bands and they get around as well. The bands are very good, but appear nice to have, rather than essential.
Being geared up for war only addresses one of the two significant threats that defence talks about.
The impacts of climate change barely get a look in. A ‘combat-capable and combat-ready’ military force cannot ‘win’ against the effects of climate change.
Yes, some young, fit, and disciplined teams with good transport and equipment would be very useful in climate disasters or after earthquakes. But on recent evidence, the NZDF appears poorly prepared for work with civilians in disaster zones at home.
For example: the Army was brought in to guard MIQ facilities during the Covid lockdowns. One third of those leaving the army in January to October 2021 – and despite being paid an additional pandemic allowance – cited the pandemic deployment as a reason for leaving. Evidently, helping at home in a crisis wasn’t what they had signed up for.
Deployment during Cyclone Gabrielle saw the Navy shipping water supplies to Gisborne. However, Defence Force personnel couldn’t distribute drinking water because they didn’t comply with the regulations governing such work.
Afflicted residents were dismayed that the thousand soldiers in the cyclone area were not all actually helping: soldiers were stood down from helping clean up properties “because of health concerns and insufficient PPE”. These are the same resolute forces expected to go into combat.
In other ways, all is not well. This year, the Auditor-General’s office criticised the Defence Force’s reporting. Numerous performance targets, for example, were achieved by altering the previously-agreed targets.
Where an awkward target was lowered to what had actually been achieved – in one case to ‘zero’ – it was misleadingly recorded as ‘met’. The Auditor-General’s assessment was that the NZDF’s reports were “entirely unreliable”.
We do need ships, aircraft, sturdy vehicles, and trained workers: for fisheries patrol, search and rescue, getting to and from Antarctica, and providing help around the Pacific and within New Zealand. But those workers don’t need vastly expensive equipment, or to be trained and armed to kill, and the vehicles don’t need to carry weapons.
Last week, the Defence Force flew to New Caledonia to evacuate New Zealanders. You don’t need sophisticated weaponry to do that, just a plane and pilots.
There is immanent threat of invasion by Australia, like Russia they are bigger than us and like Ukraine we are smarter. Or like China and Taiwan. We need to be on our toes. I don’t think our army band playing louder than theirs is going to cut it.
This brings us to our flirtation with AUKUS. There are 2 fundamental questions
1/ Will getting into bed with the US make the world a safer place? Judging by our support in the Vietnam war in which the US dropped 7.5 million tons of bombs on SE Asia and still walked away in abject humiliation and the Iraq campaign to which we wisely said “no thanks” thus avoiding involvement in another expensive geo-political debacle the answer must be “No”.
2 / Will signing up with increase or reduce New Zealand’s ability to influence the course of history? The answer must be that in exchange for the dubious benefits we will trade away our reputation in much of the world. We have unique responsibilities in the Pacific and a unique voice in the wider world. Those should be treasured and not just thrown on the bonfire of the madness of another arms race.
The commonly used expression “the Anglosphere sticking together” is really a euphemism for a race-based foreign policy (ie white ok, yellow not ok). Interesting that coalition partners who decry so-called “race-based” domestic policies are ok with it in foreign policy. Admittedly “difficult decisions” do have to be made, but the points made in this article seem to be more values-based that what the successive government appear to have considered, and are once again talking about.
Our country is one of the few fertile and temperate spaces in the Southern Hemisphere. As population moves away from the equatorial areas due to climate change, we are one of the most desirable places to go. We need to be prepared to defend our land and our very extensive seas. What forces we need for this is a matter for discussion. Perhaps something more like the Swiss army would be better suited, but being defenceless is not a sensible option. Moreover we need allies bigger than we are, so we need to support them lest they decide not to support us when we need them. Robert Morfee
In the UK the Conservatives have set out a plan for National Service.
Here is how it would work:
“The scheme being proposed now would not force anyone to do military training, Home Secretary James Cleverly told the BBC. It would be made up of two broad streams for 18-year-olds to choose from:
“Community volunteering: Spending one weekend every month – which equates to 25 days over a 12-month period – volunteering with organisations such as the NHS, fire service, ambulance, search and rescue, and critical local infrastructure.
“Military training: Applying for one of up to 30,000 “selective” military placements reserved for teenagers deemed the “brightest and the best” in areas like logistics, cyber security, procurement or civil response operations over a year-long period.
“The vast majority of 18-year-olds would not take part in any military training at all.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c988jdxl02vo
Costly compared to what? Having our trade routes compromised? The Employment benefit?
The geopolitical reality of being on your own would be fatal. Tupuna Māori recognised that when they joined the British empire, despite all its faults. The world order based on trade, security and the outlawing of aggression for the purpose of taking territory from, exterminating or enslaving other nations was established by us, with our traditional allies.
Since 1945 our generations have enjoyed a secure prosperity unprecedented in human history, and even prehistory. Only within such a system would a small nation be permitted to indulge its fantasy of an independent foreign policy or, indeed, sovereignty. When ruthless autocracies lacking democratic legitimacy threaten that order by threatening or smashing peaceful, democratic societies and violently imposing their ideologies then we must oppose them. Excuse me, but switching to a cheaper brand of Chardonnay and spending a couple of percent of GDP for defence is the least some of our pampered, ivory tower academics should support.