This is not a controversial thing at all to say. The Australians have been privately complaining about us sponging off them for decades – they've urged us to lift our spend to 2% of GDP for decades.
We have kept our spending at only 1%, or thereabouts, for decades.
Wayne Mapp, the former Defence Minister, probably said the quiet bit out loud when he said yesterday that we don't need to lift our spending any higher than it is because we have so much water between us and everyone else that it makes us basically the safest nation on Earth. Which is A, probably what most of us think anyway about why we don't need to spend more, and B, an unbelievably short-sighted thing to say.
We know the world is heating up out there, right? From Ukraine to Iran to Taiwan. We know Xi wants to take Taiwan. Some reckon it's going to happen in months, not years, worst case scenario. We also know that we don't know what that sets off in our part of the world.
Now Mapp is right in what he's implying. An invasion of New Zealand is not really a concern, but shipping routes are, aren't they? Just look at what's going on with the Strait of Hormuz – imagine that's us trying to get our food out and our fuel in.
We would not be able to keep a shipping route open by ourselves. We would need Australia or the States, and they are not going to help us if we're not prepared to help as well. Our gear is getting old, our frigates need replacing, they're old tech anyway. A billion dollar frigate can be sunk by a $300 drone nowadays, so we're going to need drones and we're going to need lots of them.
We can't look around the world in 2026, as our only ally, Australia, spends more on defence, and as NATO lifts its spending, and see China making inroads into the Pacific and think we don't need to up our dollars as well. Of course we do.
Say what you like about the shortcomings and the errors of the Trump administration, and there are plenty, but there is one thing they have been right about and have actually managed to start fixing, and that is that Western countries need to spend more on defence, and that includes us.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and radio broadcaster who hosts Newstalk ZB's weekday Drive-Time Show – where this article was sourced.
14 comments:
Pete was 100% correct
Nz ‘s maintenance of its defence forces has been woeful at best. We are a poor ally for both us and Australia and we deserve a thumping from the Chinese just so we can learn from our mistakes.
To sit in our liberal armchairs and tell the rest of the world off for defending themselves against psychotic Islamic fundamentalists and tyrannical communists despots and even global mafia networks is nz’s luxury right now. Shame on us for not at least verbally supporting them - we have gone against the very people we will be reliant on for saving us when the real psychos come for us
It speaks volumes that Hegseth & Co would never criticise the greatest freeloader of US military and other aid, which is of course Israel. He would never dare speak such an obvious and undeniable truth.
So no, we shouldn't care at all about Hegseth criticising anyone else a freeloader, given the massive elephant in the room.
It's very ironic that Heather cites the issues in the Strait of Hormuz and the economic effects, when these have actually been directly caused by the US's latest war of choice, rather than being something the US could have prevented. The way to have prevented it was to leave Iran alone. (Cue the comments about how Iran wants to take over the world, or similar).
Heather, we cant get upset about his comments because they are true.
I have been saying this for years.
NZ is a sponge and it's a myth and pure propaganda we "punch above our weight" on the world stage.
Complete hogwash.
NZ freeloaders, yep and dumb enough to thumb their noses at the rest of the world.
You only have to listen to the bozo PM yesterday yelping like a small dog about NZ nuclear free status.
A decision so backward it’s not funny. Somehow, the great logical thinkers of the NZ Govt think. If we have nuclear energy we are then one step away from acquiring a nuclear arsenal. We can’t even get basic stuff like Tanks, Ships or decent housing for our military so forget the nuclear hysteria.
NZ can’t defend itself and that is not up for debate, so it’s time to put the hand in the pocket
It isn't at all clear to me why we should take any notice of Pomade Pete (Dang! We're in a tight spot!). He lost me with all that biblical stuff over the Iran war: Armageddon and all that nonsense. Do these people seriously expect us to believe that?
With regard to NZ's geographical distance from anywhere, at one level, Mapp is correct, when one considers conventional warfare and invasion patterns. But we're in a new world now. Strategic planners must consider the nature of the current risks, and attempt to forecast what may lie ahead.
I'm a longtime observer of politics, both local and international. The rise of the internet has enabled people to read alternative news and analysis. We're much better-informed now than in my youth, when we endured wall-to-wall propaganda.
"From Ukraine to Iran to Taiwan. We know Xi wants to take Taiwan."
We're still being subjected to propaganda, unfortunately. We have extended family connections to the Ukraine and to Russia. We know what's happening there, and why. Given that the facts run counter to the propaganda, we believe pretty much nothing else claimed by the EU, US and the msm, about other areas of conflict: Iran and Israel, eg. Why would we? Uncle Sam has successfully wielded propaganda as a cudgel against the rest of us for so long now. Why would it desist?
"...but shipping routes are, aren't they?"
Are they? In virtue of what would we suppose that any polity which thought we were worth the effort would set about blockading shipping lanes and/or attacking ships belonging to other polities? Maybe, but it's a long bow, in my view.
NZ can invest more in defence, and some extra expenditure on that front may placate our allies. In the contemporary world, the biggest threat to our security looks to be the US itself: but only if it were to believe that another polity - China, eg - had designs on this territory.
However. We had all better recognise that the biggest danger to NZ in the foreseeable future is internal to this country. Don't look offshore: look at what's happening within NZ here and now.
Anon 6.27 thunders that "we have gone against the very people we will be reliant on for saving us" and somehow translates this into a defence of Hegseth's accusation of freeloading.
Sounds like a classic gaslight to me. That horse bolted the stable in 1984. The alleged freeloading seems to be a much more recent occurrence. The only connection is that American perfidy remains unchanged.
Freeloading is where one party provides value in a transaction for which they receive nothing in return. In other words, something has to actually happen. But absolutely nothing of substance has happened militarily between the US and NZ since 1984. It was the United States that walked away from ANZUS. It was the United States that wouldn't actually talk to us about defense for 20 years. And the United States still has no formal defence treaty with us.
So how on earth does our failure to satisfy MAGA criteria on the size of our defence budget constitute freeloading. They are the ones refusing to engage. Where are the gaps being filled by the American taxpayer? The soft loans for arms procurement? The US military bases pumping US dollars into our local economy? The free trade agreement designed to make our economy robust enough to support rearmament. Nothing there.
Anything American we possess has been bought and paid for. The four Poseidon aerial surveillance aircraft acquired recently are a recent example. To say nothing of the five new MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, and the five new C-130J-30 Hercules for the Air Force. All hugely expensive and all purchased from American manufacturers. Was that freeloading? Is our contribution to global security through the 5-Eyes network freeloading?
But perhaps Hegseth can produce some tangible examples of nefarious Kiwi behaviour that the rest of us have missed over the last 40 years. Perhaps Chris Penk can extract more information during his half-hour audience. If not, we are entitled to assume Hegseth's remarks are the usual ill-considered, ignorant comments that characterise every public utterance of this current Trump administration.
The pity of it is that some New Zealand journo, oblivious to the sensitivities of our history with the US, actually drew Hegseth's attention to us in public at a time when discretion is the obvious strategy to adopt. Let's hope that journo is sent to cover the front line in Ukraine for a lesson in real-politik. But more importantly, let's hope Hegseth's attention span is as short as that of his boss and he moves on to taking over Cuba as quickly as possible to deliver a victory to his MAGA base before the mid-terms.
Otherwise, he might start digging into what our nuclear-free stance means for US security. And that may result in the USS Buchanan sailing again, but with rather higher stakes this time.
Excellent summary by annon@2:24.
I vividly remember the anti-nuclear hoo-haa: I was a youngish adult at the time. But nowadays, I wouldn't personally be opposed to a debate about having nuclear power in NZ.
However, I do see difficulties with settling on a suitable site, given the nature of the environment here.
You can spin this however you want. New Zealand is totally defenceless. We will rely on the US to defend us obviously. Who else has the capacity? People seem totally deluded on the security question. Too much MSM propaganda of course. the US is practising restraint in Iran and rightly so. We need to have regard for the Iranian anti-regime populace. The UK citizens are aware. The Australian citizens are savvy as well. New Zealanders live in a delusional bubble.
We can assure Hegseth that we are paying a number of otherwise unemployed Maori to sharpen a lot of sticks, shape some stone tools, and practice their hakas.
We don't need a defense force while we have such a strong deterrent .
And how exactly are Maori, after they have gained full control in NZ by 2040, going to deter potential invaders ??
And how were they going to fend off unfriendly potential colonists if the Brits hadn't arrived first ?
"...how were they going to fend off unfriendly potential colonists..."
Make an example of one unfortunate individual by killing and eating him. Isn't that what they did to one of Tasman's men? It worked: Tasman sailed away, never to return.
"New Zealand is totally defenceless."
In the conventional sense, NZ cannot be defended. But its geography is the best defence against surprise invasions, at least.
I was told by a neighbour that, during WW2, the Japanese planned to invade the North Island via Kawhia (I think it was Kawhia). When I'd finished laughing, I remarked that it was just as well that they hadn't gone ahead with that particular plan.
China wouldn 't need to waste time and bullets invading us. All they need to do is decline to buy our produce. I'm sure a clever economist could easily calculate how long before our economy collapsed if our China trade were to stop overnight. Which it will do when the Taiwan War breaks out. Oh, and if you think there is an energy crisis now because the Strait of Hormuz is closed, just wait until the South China Sea closes. There goes our primary fuel supply-chain from Korea. We may not starve with all that unsold lamb and beef stuck onshore, but we certainly won't be driving or flying anywhere in a hurry until the Chinese say we can.
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.