To defend New Zealand and protect its people, land and economic exclusion zone. Those words sat atop a list of defence policy objectives outlined the other day by the Minister of Defence. The sentiment is hardly unusual. Similar words are at the core of every country's defence planning.
The true test of policy lies in how that objective is most effectively met. In the case of New Zealand, a trading nation surrounded by ocean, a strong emphasis on control of South Pacific waters might be assumed. Yet despite its fine words, the Government has not only decided against upgrading its maritime patrol aircraft but is considering abandoning military surveillance flights altogether.
The scrapping of the $550 million upgrade of the Orions ignores not only logic but the warnings of Foreign Affairs and Defence officials that it would upset New Zealand's defence partners. The upgrade would have seen the Orions armed with state-of-the-art electronics and acoustics for the surveillance of shipping and submarines - and ready to operate in tandem with American and Australian aircraft.
The Government, however, believes the Air Force devotes too much time to anti-submarine work and not enough to fisheries protection and Customs patrols. It apparently perceives no threat from submarines. That, however, does not mean there will be no such threat in the future.
The world is unpredictable, as recent events in Asia and the Pacific illustrate. And a quick history refresher course will show the chaos caused by submarines during conflicts last century. Their threat to shipping remains as potent as ever.
A final Government decision on the Orions' military surveillance role awaits a ministerial committee report to be forwarded by February. As the committee will be headed by Helen Clark, the omens for the Orions are not good. At best, their military activity is likely to be sharply curtailed because of their obsolete radar and the resulting unwillingness of New Zealand's allies to entertain their use in combat zones.
At worst, they may be sold and replaced by non-military aircraft, which would look after fisheries protection and Customs work. It must be highly doubtful that such aircraft could monitor New Zealand's exclusive zone as efficiently as Orions armed with the latest surveillance equipment.
The Army, of course, is the big winner in the Government's decision-making. The $611 million to be spent on 105 new light armoured vehicles could reasonably be described as lavish. The Army's present M113s date back to the Vietnam War, have proved an embarrassment in Bosnia and East Timor and clearly need replacement urgently.
The Canadian-built LAV 111 was the Army's choice and, with its ability to fill both troop-carrying and fire-support roles, will be a considerable morale-booster. Yet in its wildest dreams, the Army could not have guessed that its request for such a large number of vehicles would be granted. At best, it might have expected the acquisition would be far more stepped, starting perhaps with 30 or so vehicles.
That would have made sense for several reasons. Rather than lumping virtually all of the country's defence eggs in the Army's basket, spending could have been spread. New Zealand would also have been better able to retain operational links with its traditional allies.
As it stands, the Government's inflexibility, and readiness to plough its own path rather than listen to the advice of Defence and Foreign Affairs officials, risks leaving New Zealand with a one-dimensional Defence Force. Soldiers armed with the best equipment will be able to be deployed to the likes of United Nations peacekeeping operations. But at the whim of the Government, the capabilities of the other services have been seriously eroded. So, also, has New Zealand's ability to meet its commitments to regional security.
In an unpredictable world, the need for a flexible Defence Force should drive spending. Tailoring the armed forces to what is thought to be the most likely theatre and method of engagement is not realistic. Especially is this so when the tailoring is being done by a Prime Minister who sees fit to ignore the advice of those better placed to recognise the peril of her ways.
<i>Editorial:</i> Can Clark not see peril of her ways?
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.