If we are serious about an Independent Foreign Policy, we have to accept Neutrality is going to cost us a lot more.
The Māori Party suggestion of neutrality is worth considering.
I believe that the climate crisis means we need a vastly larger military to cope with civil disasters and if we are attempting to distance ourselves from China and America, we need to make a decision to dramatically lift what we spend on the military for purely defensive and civil disaster capacity.
How would we go about defending the realm of NZ and all our economic exclusive zone?
We can’t pull away from America and China and pretend there is no cost to being Independent.
We need to increase Military GDP spending to 5%. Interestingly Labour have quietly ratcheted GDP military spending from just over 1% to just under 2%.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
You haven’t mentioned the cost of withdrawing from the Canberra Pact. That we would be saying to Australia we are no longer an ally.
Surely you have to take that into account.
For instance, how long do think New Zealanders would be able to permanently live in Australia, or as many people do, spend several years there?
To be “independent” and neutral is in my opinion not possible, and withdrawal from the Canberra Pact not really feasible. What all the calls for neutrality miss is that we do have existing arrangements that often clash with emerging realities. For example when we got into bed with 5Eyes etc there was no Chinese “threat” nor economic reliance upon China as a market. Point is things change and it is how we navigate the change that matters. Really what we should be doing is telling our allies in no uncertain terms what our interests are and not blindly following the biggest players wishes.
Re the future Id contend that the USA will likely find that “containing” China is a failure and too costly. For ourselves and Australia projecting forward the real issues will be the emergence of India, Indonesia and Malaysia as regional powers and how we interface to them in the absence of Uncle Sam.
Australia certainly is a problem.
As climate change scorches them from the face of the planet, the climate refugees from Australia will quickly swamp NZ so much so that they will easily overwhelm the domestic population.
How does one tie ones Kangaroo down?
Somehow, I don’t think this will be a problem whatsoever because if the world turns to crap, we will have bigger worries to concern ourselves with than just them. In all likelihood, we will welcome them, given what will come our way around the same time period.
First I want to establish the danger. It’s not perfect but the nuclear clock counting down in seconds after Trump sees humanity racing towards disaster.
Second the War in Ukraine is practice for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. And China has been showing its capabilities with war games totally shutting off Taiwan.
There was a couple of decades where we could have mitigated environmental protections but we’ve gone so far in the opposite direction nothing could be more dangerous than that.
Humanity has never faced these types of irreversible tipping point before since Hiroshima but not at this level.
The total destruct of Ukraine. Look I like Ben the Blogger hes good at predicting but one thing he misses is it’s winter soon. You look at all of Russia’s precision guided attacks they’ve been hitting Ukraine electrical grid which is straight out of the Afghan Iraq, Yemen, Palestine play book and Putin will allow winter to do all his fighting for him.
Goldman Sachs say China achieves net Zero decabonization much faster than expected Goldman Sachs
https://www.goldmansachs.com › …PDF
Carbonomics China net zero The clean tech revolution
But we are going in the opposite direction attempting to produce more petro chemicals in a nieve attempt to make petrol cheap.
Now that I’ve established some arbitrary cause for concern that GOP is crazy and unchecked military power is taking away our ultimate goal of organised human existence.
Just to hammer home the point that The Daily Blog stands on the side of organised human existence…
So. Neutrality offers an answer to how we organise human existence for the “twenty second century” and probably won’t be achieved untill the 23rd century without knowing all of the details. We don’t know which warships have nuclear weapons equipped but we can ask and answer moral questions about nuclear war.
So the kinds of things that a nutrality pact would resist are pressures that would add characteristics to New Zealand that really doesn’t need to be there.
Now given that the background issues of energy security produces a set of characteristics under consideration. It sounds like people who want to maintain security ties with America needs further data under the assumption that we have an understanding of the “current” data.
But if you need further data OF, a nutrality pact then that would be under the ussumption that you need further data of the “current” situation. Then that would be a reasonable thing to do as if I just wasted half an hour because the first part of my characteristic set for war is illegitimate.
So now we get into what kind of defence force New Zealand could create that maintains organised human existence.
Now again this isn’t a condescending slight but people who don’t do philosophy start adding pragmatic details that aren’t necessary to answer the question of how we organise life.
I just think that maintaining military ties with super powers holds disentailment. I think people will reject the view if I pointed out that those political leaders of military super powers through out history are a cult.
I do think that beta orbitors revolving around alpha super powers is a consistent view (couldn’t resist that slight, hehe) I don’t think that there is a logical error I think that those promoting nutrality will have preferences that they will recoil at and the idea behind this hypothetical is to try and get this point across that a neutral zone requires a military that says if you cross this imaginary line we will fuck you up. So let’s not get it phased what nutrality actually means.
But from my perspective offensive military capabilities are indistinguishable from defensive capabilities so I will explain my whole methodology to how I get to the goal of military ties with every nation involved with the Rugby Championship tournament currently involving the All Blacks, South Africa, Argentina, and, “Australia.” And hopefully later on Pacific nations.
You might say that using Rugby Union for the purpose of expanding military capabilities is underhanded but it’s not underhanded to tease out the consequences of rebuttals or rebuke.
Again I’m not trying to sell fighter jets or battleships even though they will appear with Kiwi rundells on them “eventually.” In general New Zealanders will reject a system in which casualties and civilian death is a consequence of organising human life but in practice they do have a problem living in a system that does practice organised killing of human life.
We do need more of this pragmatic hedging for clear answers to the question being asked “what is nutrality?”
The clear answer is how does NZDF act with defensive capabilities when there are downstream consequences which is a different answer to what does nutrality mean.
Having to constrain NZDF builders to the answers of non military questions means that NZDF personal has to react to our emotional outbursts about real world consequences there’s no greater example than the effects COVID-19 has had on NZDF.
The effects corona has on The NZDF is an illustration of my position I take on nutrality with regards to downstream consequences of people with no military background deciding the make up and capabilities of New Zealand’s Defence Forces because I don’t think that I’ve made any reasoning errors when I advocate 5% GDP spend on defence with tanks, battle ships and fighter jets or whatever.
So my hypothetical risk assessment isn’t a sales pitch for BAE systems or lockmart or whatever it’s designed to tease out certain features of the view about nutrality and seek justification for continuing military ties with cult like military super powers organising the death and destruction of humanity.
I don’t think New Zealand is up to anything more than mouthing platitudes about an independent foreign policy whilst sucking up to power and money.
Sad.
2% of GDP would be a good start, which is ACT policy.
This would stop us being called ‘defence bludgers’ by our western neighbours.
It’s certainly one option. You better believe that disloyal elements in the political and media establishment are going to be targeting the Maori Party extra hard over this policy.
Of course – the yanks would never allow it so we would simply have more interference by the Yanks in our political system.
That is not so that I don’t support it, I just wish the current morons would not keep saying we have an ‘independent’ foreign policy, Bunkum!
Please, let us not hide wanting to more than double military spending behind a call for neutrality or combating climate change.
Now, if the government and its acolytes wish to more than double military spending, then how about government shows that they respect democracy by letting we, the people, vote on this extraordinary budget change!
This is a monumental budget hike, in dire economic times at that, isn’t it about time that government justifies at least one of the decisions they make in our name! And please, it does not matter which party is in office, there is no opposition push back against this.
How about a little democracy….
Voter’s don’t get to decide which capabilities set are optimal for the defence of New Zealand and all its realms. Voter’s decide who leads The New Zealand Defence force.
For voter’s it’s a moral question. I don’t think that exposing New Zealand to unchecked power is a very good way to guarantee economic security.
Prosperity has always been generated by the barrel of a gun.
If you look at the rise of any great power through out history they steal it. Whether it be America stealing middle east oil. Great Britian stealing Egyptian cotton. Rome stealing land and now China stealing land again the capability sets required to maintain the organisation of human life will depend on the sources of power being fought over.
You can’t seperate military capabilities from prosperity. We had a chance to eliminate the threat of war between super powers by bringing Russia into NATO when the wall fell but that’s long gone. Maybe we will get another chance at peace when the economic blockade of China ends for all practical uses.
China is under seige and there only sin is wanting to feed and house a billion people. It’s an absolute dereliction of duties to leave these questions for poorer nations like Samoa and Fiji to answer.
No incomes and welfare spending and health education and infrastructure spending needs to rise in conjunction with rising military spending not fall.
Cutting spending as a means of controlling inflation is just insane. The problem is how we maintain trade and China offers some solutions for how you can keep warship busy without firing a shot because seige warfare is a battle of attrition.
When we say no offensive capabilities what we mean is we are restraining NZDF commanders to blockades and seiges only. Like we’re not going to invade and occupy someone because some IP theft or killing or modernization offends us.
A smart tactician learns from his own mistakes but a wise tactician learns from other people’s mistakes no we have to raise government spending not cut spending because macho masculine battleships offend you.
“For voter’s it’s a moral question.”
This is not a moral question, this is a money question. When government wishes to increase expenditure in a given area by orders of magnitude, in a time where most people, are treading water, at best, then yeah, we the people deserve a say in how government vastly increases expenditure in a given area. Where’s the benefit for the people when more and more people are struggling as each week goes by.
This is a pretty bloody simple equation, does government help people through the tough economic times of today or does government redirect money towards a situation, or situations, that has never justified money, or huge increases in money like this, before. What has changed Sam, what has changed for New Zealand and for you, and a lot of other Kiwis to boot, to become so – pro-war!
What’s changed is there is more woman that represent a growing minority of swing voter’s who want all the sweetness of voting but none of the dirty jobs. Woman want to vote but they’ll make dam sure they don’t have to fight for there rights or be conscripted like all the men.
Woman and weak men don’t want to fight for there rights rather prefering to monitor things from Twitter. All political parties understand this dynamic and pander to the swing voter.
It takes a strong male to be able to put the nation before party politics and I support the Defence Minister Andrew Littles policies.
Rights were under threat not that long ago with only a fringe minority that consisted of as many women as men, out there fighting to preserve these rights and and dare I say this term, but I will – freedoms – as well! The only thing that has changed on the rights front is that they are no longer sacrosanct!
And no, Andrew little is not putting the nation first, quite the opposite in fact, he is putting US interests ahead of our own. The US wants all western nations to increase defense spending because what has really changed is the USA’s hold on global power is loosening and their way to handle this is by threatening, and more, the two nations that they perceive to be the cause of this problem. Nothing worse, absolutely nothing worse than our elected representatives following unelected interests and this is why I believe politics to be broken, because too much decision making is not being down with either any say from us or with our interests in mind. This is the fundamental change of the last 40 years, the suffocating hold that big money has on politics!
You do know that the U.S is an Ally of New Zealand right?
Look woman don’t want to get there nails broke. They don’t want to join the army. They want body positivity so they can be obese and sleep with multiply men. And thousands of them kill there own unborn children multiple times.
Rather than keep gender roles the woke seek to change the game to suit there messed up radical social change. So we can’t say your fat neacuse that’s fat phobic and instead not stuffing there faces and buying a tread mill they’d rather change the rules and try and shame people for not liking fat obese medicated, lots of marijuana and alcohol use there.
The same anology can be made for defence. It’s supposed to be woman and children first because a man dies to protect there legacies and further the genetic lines woman don’t have that biological requirement because woman care and nurture men protect and provide.
So instead of accepting there roles woman and weak beta males would rather say those battleships and fighter jets are to good for gender roles because woman don’t have the biological requirement to protect and provide.
Remember I’m talking about pandering to swing voter’s here most of which are overwhelmingly woman and both National and Labour are in on it.
The USA is the world’s sole superpower. This allows them to push their interests above the interests of any nation it targets. Any country that doesn’t understand this risks turning into a ‘regime’ that can be punished any number of ways, usually by sanctions, political meddling or war. China/Russia offers alternatives to the USA, hence threatens their unique power. Something must be done, something is being done by the US in order to preserve their privileged position. NZ is playing along.
As for everything else, I keep it simple – treat people as you want to treated and leave it at that.
Globalisation and “trade deals” has caused irreversible damage to the working class I hope I don’t need to remind you of the degeneracy occuring in real time all across New Zealand.
A tax system designed to benefit extreme wealth called the TPCPT what the fuck ever world trade organisation it’s not free markets it’s not even free speech they own everything so they have free speech you don’t.
So industry is leaving NZ there’s nothing there now Labour is desperately trying to start up an online gaming sector and there’s an increase in mortality among pakeha working class which is unheard of outside war and pestilence.
Maybe you grab onto feminism, maybe the church or maybe you grab onto replacement therapy that National and Labour are bringing in immigrants to undermine the greate pakeha race.
You grab onto what you can. It used to be when I was growing up in the 80’s that you’d join a union, the police, fire or military. Things were objectively more terrible in the 80’s than it is now but it was a hopeful period I remember it well.
Y’know I think we are going to get together and get out of this chaos I think Prime Minister Chippie is much more sympathetic than Matua Luxon is hopeful.
NZDF is not just man and machine it is a cultural institution. It’s a place where the poorest most aggressive among us can get adult conversation, education, discipline, fitness, prestige. And in return they must put there lives on the line to protect the interests and values been eroded.
NZDF is a whole way of life that can’t be replicated by green theories of national security and defence.
We have an election coming up with ACT on one side dedicated to undermining democracy and on the left side the Greens are dedicated to undermining society. And you can’t have parties in power who’s sole objective is to enrich the already wealthy and the corporate sector while stabing everyone else in the back.
On that note Labour will be releasing it’s defence review made up of the Majority of public submissions. There’s already a 20 billion fund available that may well be doubled depending on the recommendations of review. Purchases have been delayed out past 2040.
Every economist on the planet say China over takes the U.S.A by 2033. We have 10 years to bring all those purchase forward.
NZDF can’t operate with only 2 frigates they need 4 and 14 fighter jets as a minimum. We will have to contend with the greens crazy ideas of selling the P8 Poseidons and frigates the decessions have already been made what the optimal force during great power games are given the assaults on NZ society they’re not difficult purchases to make.
We just keep telling our stories. The New Zealand economy is being harmed by Allsorts of state and private sector interests it shouldn’t be this difficult to accept the assessments and recommendations of the recent defence review.
Globalization aka Neoliberalism, created by (mostly) US elites then put in motion by the USA, UK, with the rest of the world soon following suit. We only ever follow suit, one exception aside (Mr Uranium breathe).
And when we do – follow or do as we are told – then our two main parties only differ on the edges.
Local politics is something that big money, headed by the US is not that interested in and neither am I because we can actually do something about them while the big global-like issues that we tend to just follow suit on, these are the polices that damage us the most (widening economic inequality being the best example). Defense, has now become a global issue in that our level of self determination has dwindled . We are being asked (to put that nicely) to greatly increase our defense spending while our ties to our most important trading partner are being put into jeopardy by our allegiance to (or fear of) the world’s sole superpower. In short, what you see as sound decision making is what I see as compromised politics (making decisions not on our behalf) hence why I call for public involvement on this issue.
Two episodes ago I was watching the working group where the whole panel agreed John Key fired all the brains. He fired all the scientists and geopolitical experts. Do I think we can rebuild those expertise not really. It’s take us atleast 200 years or as long as it did last time. Trade think has over taken the government it’s left us vulnerable to degeneracy the fix I propose is pragmatic heagding. Good day A O.
Our problem is external co-opting the internal. And a good day to you too Sam
It’s one thing to be non-aligned another to be neutral, geographically we are at the mercy of shipping trade routes, and will be expected to contribute to protecting them (at least close to home) in a time of conflict. Pulling away from the western alliance means we go rapidly to the bottom of the list for restocking and replacements. It’s okay for a landlocked switzerland to be neutral but we have a massive ocean around us, ships and their weapon systems are bloody expensive. Neutral and nonaligned countries have found that they have to invest in their own arms industries as a guarentee against incursion and manipulation. In days past that meant small arms, ammunition, artillery and even fighter aircraft. Today that means drones, missles, air defence systems and for NZ, pretty much everything else too. Our recent purchase of Posidon maritime patrol aircraft clearly points where our key military priorities and expected contributions are to be made if conflict comes to the south pacific. In WW2 as far as the american forces were concerned we were a rear staging post for the campaign in the pacific and our food produce was of greater importance to the american plan than our military contribution. Our capacity for exporting food is our trump card in any conflict, yet it still needs to be shipped out and pretty much everthing else needs to be brought in. The sea lanes are vital, yet all to dependant on the protection of others.
Don’t know about Martyn but running naval blockades has always been an objective of seige warfare.
Y’know if we were to practice nutrality it would have to include a population of at least 25 million. That’s what it would take to maintain a modern industrial base. I think Super Rugby nations would be a worthy participant foe a nutrality pact if we were to artificially inflate population numbers and maintain an industrial base capable of fenessing any ideas of messing with our food.
One of the best comments I have ever read on TDB!
Totally agree Martyn and the best way to start this would be compulsory military service. This is a standard feature of countries who take a more neutral stance. It will also go a long way to resolving the crisis in defense force personnel numbers. It might also provide a more positive pathway to those that live on society’s fringes.
I agree Lightbringer.
Question re protecting our sea lanes and the narrative that our greatest utility is as a food producer.
Are we defending our sea lanes against the biggest consumer of our produce? Seems counter intuitive.
Meanwhile, we continue buying into a military alliance/servitude with an imperial power that actively limits our market access? Our alignment with the US hegemony is likely why our sea lanes may become contested and compromised.
Delicate space to navigate
Societies that can protect and provide
Realistically, since we have one of the largest maritime boarders on earth, we’d need to put military spending at 10% atleast for the first 2-5 years.
We would need to upgrade pretty much our entire naval fleet, create a brand new airforce out of nothing, invest in tanks and military equipment and massively invest in our own spy and intelligence networks to combat spying, hacking, malware.
I think we’d have to build our capacity up while in the current alliances, because Aussie, who consider us a freeloader on defence would stop picking up the slack and our maritime boarders would quickly become a free for all for every illegal fishing boat, people/ drugs smuggling scumbag who wanted to try their luck IF we haven’t built up capacity yet.
$20 billion for the first two years while we build up capacity, $10 billion every year moving forward.
Honestly…. While I like the idea of a neutral NZ , NZ doesn’t have much money, half the gdp of Ireland or Finland, that money is going to come from public services like education, healthcare and welfare.
Why the surge?
The reason I chose 5% is because the government has been deferring spending and cutting one part of the defence budget to pay for another. The 20 billion defence recapitalisation fund has nothing to do with any other part of the budget the government has been posting fucking surpluses. The idea that the government is cutting health/education/welfare to fund defence is what weak beta orbitors tell each other so they can dodge doing any of the dirty jobs that keep society safe and secure.
Yeah yeah yeah.
Hear the same sort of thinking from the gun lobby in the USA.
Having more guns makes everybody safer.
I despair for the human species.
“Strategy without tactics is the long road to victory.
Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
Sun Tzu.
there’s no fuckin neutral in a nuclear winter. we may as well join the club and tell everyone to stand clear or we’ll light the wick. That’s the only neutral a MAD world understands.
Non Alignment rather than neutrality is the way to go–neither Washington, Moscow or Beijing–but friendly relations with as many as possible. Be assured, US Imperialism would soon show its take on “friendly” if Aotearoa NZ left 5 Eyes. We would no longer be, as in Colin Powell’s words, “very, very, very good friends”.
And that would be great as far as many are concerned.
The Anglosphere’s days are numbered.
The inside of a Chinese re education camp.
Comments are closed.