David Farrar: The beat up about so called NZ freeloading

1 News reported:

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says New Zealand is “freeloading” off the American military because of its low level of military spending.

Multiple media have reported along these lines, but the truth is that Hegseth did not target New Zealand. It only came up because of a question by a journalist that was designed to generate a headline.

It is true that the US wants all friendly countries to increase defence spending, and has said they think 3.5% of GDP should be the minimum. Wanting allies and friends to spend more has been US policy for many decades. Trump has been much more muscular (and successful) in promoting this.

The speech to an Asia-Pacific conference did not mention New Zealand. In fact it was a plaudit to South Korea:

If you want to see what burden sharing looks like, consider the Republic of Korea. South Korea has invested consistently in its own defense, not because, because it does not have the luxury of treating war like an academic exercise. They live on the front lines, and so they build real combat power. President Lee’s decision to increase defense spending to the new global standard of 3.5% and to assume greater responsibility for its conventional defense reflects simply a clear-eyed understanding of the threat environment. It won’t be easy, but it’s necessary for the security and prosperity of his country. This was a hard-nosed decision, because they see the world as it actually is. We applaud the pragmatism and leadership demonstrated by Seoul. The region will be far more stable and more secure when other allies and partners follow that path.

Hegseth also went on to praise increased spending by Philippines, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Japan. His speech wasn’t chiding, it was in fact praising allies for doing more.

He then did the stick to go with the carrot:

President Trump is setting the gold standard. We demand 3.5% from our allies and partners, and we are going well beyond that number. We expect every single ally and partner to match that kind of resolve. For those nations that rise to this challenge that embrace responsibility as true partners, the benefits will be clear. As our strategy states, we will prioritize working with model allies those nations who are most capable, clear-eyed and ready to defend their national interests. For those nations, we are moving them to the front of the line, expedited arms sales, deep industrial base collaboration, expanded intelligence sharing, the list goes on that benefits many.

But for those who believe they can continue to free ride on the generosity of the American taxpayer, hear us now. Those days are over. Allies who refuse to step up and carry their own weight for our collective defense will face a clear shift in how we do business.

So this was aimed at every ally and partner in the world. No mention of NZ.

Afterwards journalist Anna Fifield asked a question:

I couldn’t help but notice that New Zealand was missing from your list of countries. There, they have recently outlined a plan to get from 1 percent to 2 percent of GDP, a long way from 3.5. Would you consider New Zealand to be a free rider?

Now this was a legitimate question, but it was also one in which there could only be one answer. Hegseth has just done a speech saying we want everyone to be at 3.5%, so he is hardly going to then say “Oh except New Zealand”. His answer was:

I appreciate the question. I listen, I mean, if I’m being honest, 2 percent is not enough, and so 2 percent is free loading, but I don’t have anything against New Zealand. I want partners to step up. I didn’t intentionally leave it off my list. I look forward to working with the new Defence Minister there and enhancing those capabilities. I think that relationship has been a very fruitful one for a very long time, but I think, as my friends [Australia’s] Richard Marles and [the UK’s] John Healey know, I’m probably the most blunt with our closest friends about what our capabilities are, and where they need to be to ensure that we’re locking arms and shields, considering the threats of the world.

So he simply answered the question by saying 2% is not enough, but went out of his way to say he has nothing against NZ.

The way other media (not Fifield) have framed this as some sort of public rebuke of NZ is rather silly. He simply answered a question.

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