The first of these is simply one of democracy. How well is the Government responding to the wishes of the people. Public opinion is opposed to the frigates, no poll on the subject has ever had a majority in favour of the frigate purchase (even counting the don’t knows). One is more likely to find supporters of MMP than apologists for the frigates, and no doubt the government ignoring the will of the people of the frigate issue has contributed to the loss of support for MMP, which many people believed would make government more responsive to the public. Generally, people would rather see billions of dollars being spent on health, education, housing and law enforcement than on costly war machines. How often, for example, does one see defence at the top of the polls as an issue that concerns people?
What are our defence needs, if any? Some people look at a world map and see that we have no near neighbours that are hostile, while some, like retired Rear Admiral Jack Welch, see shipping lanes to defend. The fact is that the Government has stated that we have no enemies and this has been the position for many years. Even the Ministry of Defence acknowledges that there is little chance of our being attacked. They say in the 1996 Ministerial briefing papers "there are no immediate or readily foreseeable threats to New Zealand’s physical security".
Why then do we maintain an expensive defence force? There are no enemies posing threats and no demand for a military from the public. Let’s then look at the frigates themselves and the international scene.
In 1989 retired Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll told Just Defence that the frigates New Zealand was about to buy had advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities but were vulnerable to air attack. He said that:
"The expense of such ships would appear to be warranted only if New Zealand’s naval commitments extend to supporting US naval operations against Soviet forces in the North Pacific and Southeast Asia."The frigates we are buying have been selected to fit in with the Australian navy so that we can train together. Frigates are also known to be designed to escort other warships, acting as anti-submarine vessels and our frigates have been specifically built to fit into such a role in the United States 7th Fleet. The ANZAC frigates we are buying have more to do with fitting into allied forces than meeting our own requirements.
"to date the contract to build 10 ANZAC class ships has brought $470 million to 417 New Zealand companies. These figures do not include the $126 million from other contracts that New Zealand companies have won in Australia as a result of access gained since we signed the frigate agreement."In addition to over half a billion dollars of taxpayers money, companies have benefited in that they are now able to bid for "multi-billion-dollar defence projects in Asia." Hence New Zealand is now becoming an exporter of expertise in the design and manufacture of military hardware for governments with dubious commitments to human rights. These export earnings are estimated to be worth $80 million a year - more than wine exports.
This ignores the reality that it is these alliances that make us our enemies to start with. The frigate Canterbury, for example, was part of a United Nations deployment that enforced the trade embargo against Iraq. It is now known that infant mortality has increased 10-fold since the embargo was implemented. New Zealand could well be viewed by the Iraqis as their enemy for contributing to these deaths.
Another argument for the frigates is that we need to train with other forces to keep our forces combat ready and effective. Larry Ross of the NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association says that if exercise with the United States the government will be in breach of section 5(2)(b) of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987. This section outlaws aiding or abetting anyone to have control over any nuclear explosive device. Being very much the junior partner in any defence alliance we will be under the control of others and our policy will need to be subservient to others’ needs, as defined by them, as we were in the Gulf War under the United States command.
New Zealand’s small no-threatening size and geographic isolation makes us ideally suited to be peacemakers in the region and beyond. We could become active peacemakers rather than supporters of war. Our defence spending currently supports an industry that has a vested interest in war and the violent settlement of disputes.
Prevention and settlement of disputes through diplomacy is something that New Zealand should be seeking. Defence researcher I.C. MacGibbon wrote in 1977:
"Ideally, the security of New Zealand could best be achieved by ensuring conditions in which major threats to her interests would not emerge, that is, through political action to remove the sources of conflict."This would require a mature diplomacy that could not also be part of alliances that may undermine friendly relations with other countries.
Not only would such a diplomacy secure our own defence but we could make a more valuable contribution to world peace than we could through sending troops away. This role for New Zealand has been supported by the Dalai Lama and Josè Ramos Horta, both Nobel Prize Winners and international conflict resolution experts such as Dudley Weeks.
The beneficiaries of the frigates project are diplomats and politicians who think we should be part of alliances with the United States and Australia and the companies that have been given a subsidy from the New Zealand taxpayer.
We should use the upcoming defence review and possible frigate purchase as an opportunity to reflect on our place in the world and how we can best contribute to world peace.
Richard Davis, September 1997.
Return to Archival Index
Back to theHuman Rights Action Group Homepage