Bryce Edwards asks whether it is “time to break up with America”. Don Brash asks whether it is any longer safe to be an American ally. Both are fair questions. Both, however, miss a more awkward truth.
New Zealand is being invited to agonise over the condition of a relationship that, in any serious strategic sense, ended long ago.
To borrow Bryce Edwards’s romantic vernacular, this is beginning to resemble the spectacle of someone solemnly debating whether to leave a partner who moved out years ago, changed the locks, and has since been seen around town with other people.
That may sound flippant. It is not. It is simply a more accurate description of New Zealand’s position than the self-important language now fashionable in parts of the foreign-policy commentariat.
The conceit behind the “break up with America” thesis is that New Zealand still enjoys something like the old alliance relationship with Washington, and must now decide whether to preserve or repudiate it on moral grounds. But America largely settled this matter decades ago. It did so not because Donald Trump arrived in 2026 and suddenly made the United States objectionable to refined New Zealand sensibilities. It did so because New Zealand ceased to be, in Washington’s eyes, a reliably aligned and strategically useful partner.
That process began in the 1980s and was reinforced thereafter. The anti-nuclear rupture was not some costless assertion of sovereign virtue, however fondly it is remembered in progressive mythology. It had consequences. One was New Zealand’s practical exclusion from ANZUS. Another was that a country once regarded as a dependable ally came increasingly to be seen as a sentimental, self-excusing, semi-detached actor: happy to enjoy the benefits of Western security, less keen to shoulder the burdens.
That point was not hard to see even in 2002. In articles I wrote then for the Otago Daily Times and the Australian Financial Review, I argued that New Zealand’s “independent” posture was not a free good. It was already carrying costs, in Washington and in Canberra. As I put it then, “the past has finally caught up with us.” I also quoted an Australian newspaper’s description of the trans-Tasman relationship as “rock-solid mates become distant acquaintances.” That was not journalistic overstatement. It was an early description of strategic downgrading.
The warning signs were plain enough. Australia moved ahead on strategic and trade matters without us. New Zealand was increasingly left outside conversations that once would have included it. Washington’s view had plainly cooled. Helen Clark’s government liked to treat this as either exaggerated or irrelevant, but it was neither. As I noted regarding Clark’s Washington visit at the time, she “was reminded in no uncertain terms that New Zealand is not now an ally of the US.” That was not some passing diplomatic mood. It was the essence of the matter.
That is why Bryce Edwards’s argument is back to front. He treats present tensions as though they represent a shocking new estrangement caused by Washington’s conduct. In reality, the estrangement is old. The truly striking thing is not that New Zealand may need to “break up” with America; it is that so many New Zealanders have gone on speaking as if the old relationship remained intact.
Consider trade. There was a time when it would have been almost unthinkable for New Zealand to be left out while Australia pursued major trade arrangements with the United States and others. Yet that is precisely what happened. As I wrote at the time, Australia was negotiating trade agreements with the US, Japan and Thailand on its own, whereas in the past it had been taken for granted that the two countries negotiated in concert. That was not a minor slight. It was evidence that New Zealand had become less relevant.
Consider defence. New Zealand scrapped air combat capability and for years behaved as though geography, good intentions and inherited Western order were adequate substitutes for hard power. It is difficult to be treated as a serious ally when one signals, in effect, that one expects others to provide the umbrella while one lectures them on the quality of their manners.
That point is underscored rather brutally by the scale of American hard power. In the recent rescue operation for the US Chief Warrant Officer, the aircraft employed by the United States reportedly amounted to more than three times the size of New Zealand’s entire air force. The refuelling tankers alone exceeded New Zealand’s whole fleet. One need not celebrate American military activism to recognise the obvious implication: countries that can project force on that scale do not think about alliance management in quite the same sentimental terms as countries that cannot. The gap is not merely one of degree. It is one of category.
This is why the current New Zealand handwringing over American conduct has an oddly unreal quality. Of course one may criticise the Trump administration. Indeed, one may criticise it sharply. But New Zealand should do so from a position of sobriety, not fantasy. The fantasy is that Wellington stands poised to sever some still-substantial alliance. The sobriety is to recognise that America long ago recalibrated the relationship in light of New Zealand’s own choices.
None of this requires one to endorse American policy towards Iran, still less every rhetorical eruption from the White House. Reasonable people can disagree about the justice, prudence and legality of the American and Israeli actions. It is easy enough to construct a case for them, and easy enough to construct a case against them. The trouble with much New Zealand commentary is not that it is critical. It is that it remains melodramatic and self-regarding.
The question is not whether New Zealand can strike an attitude. It plainly can. The question is what the attitude is worth.
If the lesson drawn from the Iran conflict is that New Zealand should further distance itself from the United States while continuing to underinvest in defence and overinvest in posturing, then the country will have learned precisely the wrong lesson.
The more serious lesson concerns capability and resilience. The fuel shock now affecting New Zealand and Australia is a case in point. Much of the commentary treats it simply as fallout from events in the Gulf. That is only half true. External shocks reveal internal foolishness. They do not create it.
New Zealand’s fuel vulnerability is, to a considerable extent, self-inflicted. So is Australia’s. For years both countries behaved as though the world had become so safe, so orderly and so frictionless that strategic reserves, domestic productive capacity and hard-headed energy security could be treated as relics of an earlier age. Refineries disappeared. Domestic production was constrained. Stockpiles remained inadequate. Governments of left and right acted as though “just in time” was a law of nature rather than a fair-weather management fashion.
It turns out that agriculture still runs on diesel, not on virtue. Freight still depends on fuel, not on slogans. The “end of history”, alas, has once again failed to arrive.
That matters for foreign policy because a country that will not provide for its own basic resilience is in no position to indulge grand notions of strategic independence. Independence without capability is not independence. It is dependence with better public relations.
Brash is right, at least, to force attention back to interest. States align because they believe it serves their interests. The United States certainly does. So should New Zealand. But that requires an adult discussion. It requires recognition that alliances are not charitable enterprises, and that stronger countries do not indefinitely extend special regard to weaker ones that contribute less, moralise more and assume that past sacrifices entitle them to perpetual consideration.
That is why the nostalgic invocation of the 1980s is so misleading. Yes, New Zealand survived the ANZUS rupture. Yes, the sky did not fall. But survival is not the same thing as costlessness. The price was paid over time: in diminished influence, in reduced strategic weight, in exclusion from opportunities, and in a gradual shift in how others assessed us. The Americans did not need to announce a dramatic divorce. They simply moved on.
One can see why this truth is uncomfortable. It is easier to imagine that Wellington still stands at the centre of a moral drama in which it must decide whether to cling to or renounce a superpower. It is less flattering to admit that successive New Zealand governments, especially from the Clark era onward, helped downgrade the relationship through a mixture of vanity, underinvestment and a childlike belief that principles count most when someone else pays for them.
Winston Peters, for all his theatricality, is not wrong to seek useful dealings with Washington. Nor are his critics entirely wrong to be alarmed by aspects of American conduct. But both camps tend to proceed from the same mistaken premise: that New Zealand still occupies a place in American strategic thinking remotely comparable to the one it once did.
It does not.
That does not mean New Zealand should abase itself before Washington. Nor does it mean hitching itself uncritically to every American venture. It means something more prosaic and more demanding: New Zealand must decide whether it intends to be a serious country.
A serious country would stop confusing rhetoric with policy. It would stop treating defence as a distasteful colonial leftover. It would stop congratulating itself on “independence” while relying on others for the hard stuff. It would rebuild resilience in energy, supply chains and military capability. It would seek good relations with the United States, Australia and others, but without illusion. And it would understand that trust, once squandered, is not restored by sentiment.
Bryce Edwards asks whether it is time to break up with America. The more pertinent question is whether New Zealand has finally noticed that America, in the old alliance sense, broke up with us years ago.
The task now is not to stage a melodramatic separation. It is to recover enough realism, capability and self-respect to make future relationships matter.
Nicholas Kerr, who grew up in New Zealand, is a marketing consultant in Texas, where he lives with his wife and two small children. This article was sourced HERE
That may sound flippant. It is not. It is simply a more accurate description of New Zealand’s position than the self-important language now fashionable in parts of the foreign-policy commentariat.
The conceit behind the “break up with America” thesis is that New Zealand still enjoys something like the old alliance relationship with Washington, and must now decide whether to preserve or repudiate it on moral grounds. But America largely settled this matter decades ago. It did so not because Donald Trump arrived in 2026 and suddenly made the United States objectionable to refined New Zealand sensibilities. It did so because New Zealand ceased to be, in Washington’s eyes, a reliably aligned and strategically useful partner.
That process began in the 1980s and was reinforced thereafter. The anti-nuclear rupture was not some costless assertion of sovereign virtue, however fondly it is remembered in progressive mythology. It had consequences. One was New Zealand’s practical exclusion from ANZUS. Another was that a country once regarded as a dependable ally came increasingly to be seen as a sentimental, self-excusing, semi-detached actor: happy to enjoy the benefits of Western security, less keen to shoulder the burdens.
That point was not hard to see even in 2002. In articles I wrote then for the Otago Daily Times and the Australian Financial Review, I argued that New Zealand’s “independent” posture was not a free good. It was already carrying costs, in Washington and in Canberra. As I put it then, “the past has finally caught up with us.” I also quoted an Australian newspaper’s description of the trans-Tasman relationship as “rock-solid mates become distant acquaintances.” That was not journalistic overstatement. It was an early description of strategic downgrading.
The warning signs were plain enough. Australia moved ahead on strategic and trade matters without us. New Zealand was increasingly left outside conversations that once would have included it. Washington’s view had plainly cooled. Helen Clark’s government liked to treat this as either exaggerated or irrelevant, but it was neither. As I noted regarding Clark’s Washington visit at the time, she “was reminded in no uncertain terms that New Zealand is not now an ally of the US.” That was not some passing diplomatic mood. It was the essence of the matter.
That is why Bryce Edwards’s argument is back to front. He treats present tensions as though they represent a shocking new estrangement caused by Washington’s conduct. In reality, the estrangement is old. The truly striking thing is not that New Zealand may need to “break up” with America; it is that so many New Zealanders have gone on speaking as if the old relationship remained intact.
Consider trade. There was a time when it would have been almost unthinkable for New Zealand to be left out while Australia pursued major trade arrangements with the United States and others. Yet that is precisely what happened. As I wrote at the time, Australia was negotiating trade agreements with the US, Japan and Thailand on its own, whereas in the past it had been taken for granted that the two countries negotiated in concert. That was not a minor slight. It was evidence that New Zealand had become less relevant.
Consider defence. New Zealand scrapped air combat capability and for years behaved as though geography, good intentions and inherited Western order were adequate substitutes for hard power. It is difficult to be treated as a serious ally when one signals, in effect, that one expects others to provide the umbrella while one lectures them on the quality of their manners.
That point is underscored rather brutally by the scale of American hard power. In the recent rescue operation for the US Chief Warrant Officer, the aircraft employed by the United States reportedly amounted to more than three times the size of New Zealand’s entire air force. The refuelling tankers alone exceeded New Zealand’s whole fleet. One need not celebrate American military activism to recognise the obvious implication: countries that can project force on that scale do not think about alliance management in quite the same sentimental terms as countries that cannot. The gap is not merely one of degree. It is one of category.
This is why the current New Zealand handwringing over American conduct has an oddly unreal quality. Of course one may criticise the Trump administration. Indeed, one may criticise it sharply. But New Zealand should do so from a position of sobriety, not fantasy. The fantasy is that Wellington stands poised to sever some still-substantial alliance. The sobriety is to recognise that America long ago recalibrated the relationship in light of New Zealand’s own choices.
None of this requires one to endorse American policy towards Iran, still less every rhetorical eruption from the White House. Reasonable people can disagree about the justice, prudence and legality of the American and Israeli actions. It is easy enough to construct a case for them, and easy enough to construct a case against them. The trouble with much New Zealand commentary is not that it is critical. It is that it remains melodramatic and self-regarding.
The question is not whether New Zealand can strike an attitude. It plainly can. The question is what the attitude is worth.
If the lesson drawn from the Iran conflict is that New Zealand should further distance itself from the United States while continuing to underinvest in defence and overinvest in posturing, then the country will have learned precisely the wrong lesson.
The more serious lesson concerns capability and resilience. The fuel shock now affecting New Zealand and Australia is a case in point. Much of the commentary treats it simply as fallout from events in the Gulf. That is only half true. External shocks reveal internal foolishness. They do not create it.
New Zealand’s fuel vulnerability is, to a considerable extent, self-inflicted. So is Australia’s. For years both countries behaved as though the world had become so safe, so orderly and so frictionless that strategic reserves, domestic productive capacity and hard-headed energy security could be treated as relics of an earlier age. Refineries disappeared. Domestic production was constrained. Stockpiles remained inadequate. Governments of left and right acted as though “just in time” was a law of nature rather than a fair-weather management fashion.
It turns out that agriculture still runs on diesel, not on virtue. Freight still depends on fuel, not on slogans. The “end of history”, alas, has once again failed to arrive.
That matters for foreign policy because a country that will not provide for its own basic resilience is in no position to indulge grand notions of strategic independence. Independence without capability is not independence. It is dependence with better public relations.
Brash is right, at least, to force attention back to interest. States align because they believe it serves their interests. The United States certainly does. So should New Zealand. But that requires an adult discussion. It requires recognition that alliances are not charitable enterprises, and that stronger countries do not indefinitely extend special regard to weaker ones that contribute less, moralise more and assume that past sacrifices entitle them to perpetual consideration.
That is why the nostalgic invocation of the 1980s is so misleading. Yes, New Zealand survived the ANZUS rupture. Yes, the sky did not fall. But survival is not the same thing as costlessness. The price was paid over time: in diminished influence, in reduced strategic weight, in exclusion from opportunities, and in a gradual shift in how others assessed us. The Americans did not need to announce a dramatic divorce. They simply moved on.
One can see why this truth is uncomfortable. It is easier to imagine that Wellington still stands at the centre of a moral drama in which it must decide whether to cling to or renounce a superpower. It is less flattering to admit that successive New Zealand governments, especially from the Clark era onward, helped downgrade the relationship through a mixture of vanity, underinvestment and a childlike belief that principles count most when someone else pays for them.
Winston Peters, for all his theatricality, is not wrong to seek useful dealings with Washington. Nor are his critics entirely wrong to be alarmed by aspects of American conduct. But both camps tend to proceed from the same mistaken premise: that New Zealand still occupies a place in American strategic thinking remotely comparable to the one it once did.
It does not.
That does not mean New Zealand should abase itself before Washington. Nor does it mean hitching itself uncritically to every American venture. It means something more prosaic and more demanding: New Zealand must decide whether it intends to be a serious country.
A serious country would stop confusing rhetoric with policy. It would stop treating defence as a distasteful colonial leftover. It would stop congratulating itself on “independence” while relying on others for the hard stuff. It would rebuild resilience in energy, supply chains and military capability. It would seek good relations with the United States, Australia and others, but without illusion. And it would understand that trust, once squandered, is not restored by sentiment.
Bryce Edwards asks whether it is time to break up with America. The more pertinent question is whether New Zealand has finally noticed that America, in the old alliance sense, broke up with us years ago.
The task now is not to stage a melodramatic separation. It is to recover enough realism, capability and self-respect to make future relationships matter.
Nicholas Kerr, who grew up in New Zealand, is a marketing consultant in Texas, where he lives with his wife and two small children. This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.