Dialogue: Defence policy must not be led by political whim

By CEDRIC STEWARD*

It has become clear from media comment and debate that the subject of defence needs to be discussed and explained in terms that everyone, young and old, can understand.

First, what is defence? It is long-term national security. It follows, therefore, that defence policy is for the long term. It cannot be switched on and off every three years or so according to the whims and fancies of the Government of the day.

The lead times for the procurement of major items of capital equipment can be up to 10 years.

The acquisition of technical skills and operational expertise to match these purchases can take even longer and, once lost, cannot be easily regained.

Because of these factors, the only commonsense thing to do is to take defence out of the political arena. I have long believed this and said so in a submission to the Deputy Prime Minister in 1990. I also placed health, education and national superannuation in the same category.

To develop a defence policy, we have to look at what we are and where we are. We are a democratic group of people with like ideals to those of the so-called Western group of nations - that is, we value our freedoms and the right for self-determination. We are also an island nation surrounded by vast oceans.

It follows, therefore, that any kind of defence policy that we would or could consider must be oriented around a long-range maritime capability - and I mean maritime both on the sea and in the air.

More than 1000 years of British history (Britain also being an island nation) demonstrated just how much trade followed the flag. In other words, the maintenance of sea lanes of communication was essential for the security of her people and assets, and the projection of influence.

The Falklands campaign in the 1980s (where issues of sovereignty were involved) was a good example of the advantage of being able to project power and influence over long distances from home base by means of maritime sea and air forces in support of the ground forces - what some refer to as the balanced force.

Being part of the Western group of nations brings with it certain national responsibilities. Although we are a small nation, we are nevertheless expected to be able to take care of ourselves, but under the umbrella of collective defence and security which our membership provides and which we as New Zealanders all enjoy.

We live on the rim of the largest expanse of water in the world, the Pacific Ocean, and close to the largest concentration of peoples, South-east Asia. We are a Rimpac nation. As such, our best efforts would best be focused in the area in which we live, the South-west Pacific.

Ideally, we should form some kind of defence cooperative with our closest friend and neighbour, Australia, and together become the sheet anchor for security and stability in the South-west Pacific.

Such an arrangement would be greatly welcomed by our old and traditional friends and allies - Britain, Canada and the United States - as well as our foremost trading partners in South-east Asia. It would also bring much-needed relief from anxiety, and stability to the small island nations in our part of the world, which for so long now have relied on us for leadership and support.

Defence expenditure should be what the country can reasonably afford but, having said that, the nature of our armed forces should be such that any contribution we may make to a larger allied force would make that force better with it rather than without. New Zealand really has no alternative to collective defence.

The way of life we all enjoy is proof enough of the success of similar defence policies of the past, going back almost as far as the beginning of our national history. Defence expenditure is the premium we pay for national insurance. And like most of us who take out insurance, we grudgingly pay out money each year to insure against an eventuality that we hope will never happen.

It is difficult to see an immediate threat to this country today - and that is because we have taken out this kind of insurance in the past.

We don't wait to see the hostile submarine on the horizon; we don't wait to see the glint of the enemies' guns. Deterrence is still the name of the game.

Therefore, we must ensure that our defence posture remains positive and visible to all at all times. Much of what I have said here is not new, but it seems there is a real need to say it all again.

What did Churchill say? "Ignore the lessons of history at your peril."

* Rear-Admiral Cedric Steward retired as Chief of Naval Staff in 1986.