David Farrar: Another nutty idea

Three authors write on Newsroom:

Considering international events such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the violence in Gaza, it could be argued that now is not the moment to be proposing disarmament and the abolition of the military. Isn't a strong and professional military necessary for guaranteeing protection and national security? Don't we require military force to deal with the threats posed by hostile states or groups, terrorism, weapons proliferation, great power rivalry, organised crime, violent extremism, climate crisis and all the other sources of instability today? Shouldn't we be spending more on the military at this time, not less?

This is certainly the common-sense view. However, as we argue in our new book, Abolishing the Military, an honest and scrupulous analysis of the evidence and arguments shows that the widely held idea that we require a military to ensure national defence and security is questionable, and a comforting but misleading story from a bygone era.

The common-sense view could also be called the not crazy view. Having liberal democratic countries unilaterally disarm benefits authoritarian expansionist regimes.

In the first place, it has to be acknowledged that the use of military force has an abysmal record as a tool of foreign policy. There are few if any cases from history where the employment of military power resulted in peace, security, stability, democracy or improved human rights. In most cases, it leads to further violence and instability, and mass suffering for civilians. Russia, Ukraine, Israel and hamas are all discovering this today, while the United States found it out in Afghanistan a couple of years ago.

If Ukraine did not have military power, it would no longer exist as a country. Is Israel did not have military power, there would be no Jews alive in the middle east. If the Uk didn't have military power, the Falklands would have been conquered by force. One could also talk about Grenada, protecting the Kurds, defeating ISIS, keeping South Korea free, keeping Taiwan free etc etc.

A direct alternative to the military is civilian-based defence (CBD), sometimes called social defence. Organised to respond to both foreign invasions or internal usurpations, it involves citizen-based protest and persuasion, non-cooperation, direct intervention and other forms of nonviolent defiance by the population and social institutions.

If a hostile foreign power invaded Aotearoa, for example, roads, airport runways and ports could be blocked by vehicles and ships. People could change road signs to confuse the invaders, something that Czechoslovakians did following the Prague Spring in 1968 to resist the Soviet invasion.

LOL. Their alternative to having a defence force is to have confusing road signs. Maybe they should all be in Te Reo, in case we get invaded by a country that doesn't;t know how to use Google Maps or Google Translate!

Local power generators and community food gardens could make the population less vulnerable to coercive control.

I want some of those mushrooms, the authors are on.

There are also enough examples of such thinking in other countries – Iceland, Costa Rica, Lithuania and others – to know that it is more than wishful thinking.

Lithuania spends 2.8% of its GDP on defence – almost double NZ. They have conscription, and are members of nato. They have 37,000 active soldiers compared to under 9,000 for NZ, despite having half our population. So I'm all for them as a model to follow!

David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.