Opinion

Phillip Mckinnon: New Zealand correspondant for Jane's Defence Weekly; Defence and Technical correspondant for New Zealand Aviation News, and contributor to several Asia and Pacific magazines on defence matters, looks at the recently released RNZRSA Statement on Defence.

As the introduction to the RNZRSA Defence Policy statement points out, the organisation is a primarily a welfare institution devoted to meeting the needs of ex-service personnel. Only twice in the past, in 1939 and again in 1945, has the RNZRSA felt the need to involve itself in the issue of national defence policy. The fact that again the RNZRSA has felt such a need is an indication of the disquiet the RNZRSA National Council, as representatives of the membership, feels over the current state of New Zealand’s defence policy.

Wisely the RNZRSA has steered clear of making a political statement and have instead produced a defence policy document which it is hoped will become a benchmark against which government policy can be measured. Whether this comes to fruition is largely dependent on the effectiveness and scope of any future public debate on the country’s defence policy. Considering whether or not the RNZRSA should, as a welfare organisation, be involving itself in maters of defence policy, one is left with the question “if not the RSA then who?” There can be no doubt that the organisation can draw on the required experience and military knowledge to make a sound contribution to any debate on the matter.
To say that the view of defence needs, by the current government and governments since the early 1980s and that of the RNZRSA are poles apart is somewhat of an exaggeration, however there is a considerable walk between the two camps. This difference stems primarily from two causes, a fundamentally different strategic, geo-political and security view of the world and hence New Zealand’s defence requirements in that world, and what the RNZRSA sees as the ascendance of partisan politics in the formation of New Zealand’s defence policy.

It is perhaps the matter of what the RNZRSA sees as successive governments making politics out of national defence policy that concerns them the most. Believing that successive governments have stymied public debate, they point to the lack of a recent White Paper on Defence, and reluctance by governments to actively seek a meaningful public debate on the matter, here the RNZRSA has a valid point. If nothing else, if the RNZRSA defence policy stimulates debate amongst the public, it will have served its purpose.

As to the question of whether or not national defence policy has become over politicised, is more of a thorny question. The RNZRSA is correct in stating that up until the end of the cold war, broadly speaking, governments were in agreement over the country’s defence needs, if not how much they were willing to pay to meet those needs. The world however has changed since the mid 1980s and is continuing to change, and it is the role of governments, by definition political beasts, to view this changing world and decide where the nation’s defence and security needs lie. However, it is also the duty of governments not to use the nation’s security as a domestic political tool as the RNZRSA seems to believe recent governments have.

On the question of the structure and capability of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), the RNZRSA Defence Policy would see the NZDF return to the broad base approach that prevailed until the early 1990s. According to the RNZRSA the rational for this is simple and has been expounded since the advent of modern warfare. You never fight the war you are trained and equipped for and a peacetime military is never big enough to meet the needs of war. There is certainly merit in the RNZRSA thinking on this matter because as they point out, capability in depth rather than breadth, as is the current policy, is all very well as long as the base is wide enough to support the depth. It is RNZRSA contention that this is not currently the case, and thus provides a major weakness in the nations security.

The size and scope of the NZDF of course raises the question of funding, and the RNZRSA position is at variance with the current government by claiming that defence spending is insufficient to meet the needs of the NZDF and is in fact declining. What is certain is that no matter whose numbers you look at, the true situation is difficult to see. The idea however, that a developed nation such as New Zealand, should be spending between 2% and 3% of GDP on defence is a view widely held by many similar nations, therefore the RNZRSA view that New Zealand should be doing the same is reasonable and would in all probability find public support.

Overall, no matter whether you agree or disagree with the RNZRSA Defence policy framework, it comes as welcome fuel to the smouldering public debate on how the country can and should defend our interests both at home and in the world. It is to be hoped that this addition of fuel will ignite a debate that will see New Zealand develop an informed transparent defence policy before the next election.