by Geoffrey Churchman
During the week an article titled “New Zealand military ‘not in a fit state’, government says” appeared which began:
“New Zealand’s military is beset with problems and not prepared for future challenges, the government acknowledged on Friday as it set out a roadmap to revamp the country’s armed forces.
“Facing basic problems of ageing equipment and difficulties recruiting personnel, the South Pacific nation’s roughly 15,000-strong defence force “is not in a fit state to respond to future challenges”, according to policy review documents. The withering assessment [was] presented by the country’s Prime Minister Chris Hipkins and Defence Minister Andrew Little on Friday.
According to key findings, New Zealand’s military is designed for a “relatively benign strategic environment” rather than a Pacific region replete with climate-fuelled challenges and intense strategic competition between China and the West.
In response, the government argues that New Zealand needs to invest in a “combat-capable” force that can help safeguard the country’s interests in the region.
The words in bold are the strong clue to what this is all about. Across the ditch the Albo government is full on with this, wasting a massive sum on nuclear submarines: according to the Sydney Morning Herald:
The government expects the full cost of the program, including construction and maintenance and service, to range from $268 billion to $368 billion up to 2055. Albanese likened the investment to the creation of the car industry in Australia after World War II and emphasised the benefits that would flow to industry and innovation from a bigger defence sector.
Everyone knows what happened this century to Australia’s car industry, but the difference is that cars are useful things for the population — nuclear submarines are not. But it will give Australians jobs, so that makes it all right. Hmm.
And Australia is building a missiles industry: see this article: Readers disgusted with pro militarism report on Australia getting a “missiles industry” and
The government of Jacindaland is right behind all this and when the intention of increasing NZ’s spending on Defense from 1% of GDP upwards to approaching 2% was criticised by Peace Action Wellington, Andrew ‘Angry’ Little’s response was that was an old Left Wing position and, by implication, obsolete. Yes, well, traditional Left Wing concerns about economic equity and well-being of the population have been thrown out the window by this regime to be replaced with Racism and Wokeism as well as Climatism and Globalism to benefit the national and international top 1%; in fact the top 0.1%, which was the intent and achievement of the Covid Scamdemic.
Why can not New Zealand be the Switzerland of the South Pacific and take a neutral non-aligned stance on foreign conflicts and global hegemony? That approach has enormously benefited Switzerland economically since WW2 and the Swiss Franc is the World’s strongest currency.
What are the alleged “Climate-fuelled challenges”? The ability to endure hotter summers and colder winters? Maybe, but how does spending more on the military help that? An argument can be made for more evacuation helicopters and supply ships for severe weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle or a volcanic eruption.
What potential invader does NZ have? For that matter, what potential invader does Australia have? A few decades ago the case was made that Indonesia was a threat. But there’s been no evidence of that. China? Well, China has already invaded economically at the invitation of both Labour and National governments, so job done.
Neutrality does not mean pacificism — you need to defend yourself if attacked by an aggressor. There is a need to patrol the seas by ships and aircraft to deal with pirates, and smugglers. But a full fleged invasion is not on the cards. It’s time to get real.