GUEST BLOG: Geoff Fischer – The Fruits of Defeat?
New Zealand entered the Vietnam war on behalf of the United States in 1963 with a small force of artillery and infantry and other military personnel. 37 New Zealand soldiers died and 187 were wounded. These losses were modest compared to the previous world wars which New Zealand had fought on behalf of Britain, and the subsequent Korean war fought for the United States.
There was never any serious pretence that New Zealand’s own national interest was directly involved in the Vietnam war. The public was simply told that New Zealand’s troops were there because “if we don’t support the US now, we cannot expect them to come to our aid in the future”. As shown by its cavalier treatment of the troops who did return home “safely”, the New Zealand state was not at all fazed by its losses in the conflict. However despite the best efforts of the United States and the combined contributions of New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and the Philippines the war was lost.
What did defeat look like for New Zealand?
Not too bad as it turned out. For reasons of their own, the US and Vietnam reached a rapprochement. Vietnam, as the victor, was able to set the terms of its new relationship with the US. Things would have been different if the US had been victorious as it, and all its allies, had anticipated would be the case. The US would have made Vietnam into an economic, political and military vassal state, rather like the Philippines. New Zealand and the other minor US allies would hardly have got a look in. But a victorious Vietnam was not going to discriminate in favour of the US against its minions, and so New Zealand developed a healthy trading and diplomatic relationship with its erstwhile enemy, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
This serendipitous turn of events gave rise to a belief in Wellington that there was no downside to defeat in a war waged on behalf of Washington, so long as the military contribution was only on a token scale. Thus New Zealand became involved in more such wars.
New Zealand’s Special Air Service (NZSAS) deployed to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. 10 deaths were recorded. Defeat followed in 2021. Again, the contribution was a token one, and the losses were modest from the perspective of the New Zealand government. Yet thus far there has been no rapprochement between the US and Afghanistan, because the US has no need for such, and the Taliban government evidently has little desire for it. So despite New Zealand having a significant Afghan refugee population, so far there has been no restoration of trade or diplomatic links with Afghanistan.
In quick succession New Zealand then deployed troops to US-led wars in Ukraine (2023) and the Middle East (2024). The familiar pattern of token deployment of troops and military equipment was followed, and we can safely assume that Wellington is betting that the ultimate outcome will be similar to the Vietnam war, meaning that from the New Zealand perspective defeat will be as good as, or even better than, victory.
The problem with victory is that while the United States can be petulant towards its former enemies, it can be absolutely vindictive towards its current allies. This is seen in the Ukraine war, which the United States has used to undermine the German economy despite the fact that Germany has rigidly supported the US in both the war against Russia and the Gaza genocide. The US has carried through its campaign against Germany by destroying the NordStream 2 gas pipeline while obliging Germany to boycott the Russian economy and to give generous financial support to Ukraine.
The US will pick the fruits of victory in Ukraine and the Middle East, and its allies will be literally left in the cold. Yet Wellington seems to suppose that defeat will play out with Russia and Ukraine as it did with Vietnam. That is why New Zealand is not so unhappy to be facing defeat in Ukraine, which seems a real prospect as the US scales down its support for Kyiv. New Zealand will suffer small losses (only two fighters known to have been lost in Ukraine to date), will keep on side with its “traditional” and overbearing ally, the US, and perhaps imagines that it will still have a chance to capitalize on the rebuilding of the Russian and Ukrainian economies.
That last is a naive hope which depends entirely on the conditions under which the war is concluded, and how the US responds. Think back to Afghanistan. Three years after the defeat there has been no settlement with Afghanistan, primarily because the US has found no reason to settle. Will it find a reason to settle with Russia? Perhaps and perhaps not. Once the war is over, US sanctions against Russia may be left in place, which means New Zealand also will be cut out of any part in the reconstruction or normal on-going trade and investment.
The Middle East is similarly problematic for New Zealand. In the less likely event of US forces and proxies in the region being defeated by the “Axis of Resistance”, there will be no upside for New Zealand. Severe US sanctions will remain and New Zealand will be forced to abide by them. Neither will there be a dividend for victory. New Zealand’s investment will have been miniscule. A handful of military personnel and some disruption to trade, but disregarding the reputational cost, we can be reasonably sure that neither victory nor defeat will bring benefits to New Zealand in that particular conflict.
The real test for the “fruits of defeat” strategy will come in a Aukus Tier 2 conflict with China. On the face of it Tier 2 looks like a low-cost or even “token” commitment to war with China. However the first very real question is whether there can be even the possibility of a “token” involvement in a war between US and the PRC. Does Wellington imagine that it will once again escape with only double digit casualties in such a conflict? Then, does it suppose that a victorious or even unbowed China will be as magnanimous to its enemies as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam?
Victory is not a given and the fruits of defeat cannot be taken for granted. Wellington needs to re-think the strategy it has followed for the past half century.
I think you misread the reasons for New Zealand’s contribution to the Vietnam war. As I understand it, the reason was the beef trade.
Holyoake wanted and expected to extract extra quota, Johnson proposed to zero it.
There is a plausible argument that New Zealand haggles with the US over the terms of its engagement in US adventures abroad, and that New Zealand and the US meet as equals in cynical bilateral negotiations over what number of troops will gain what level of market access.
The body language of Joe Biden throwing his arm around the shoulders of a physically diminutive and clearly uncomfortable Jacinda Ardern suggests otherwise. The US is the dominant partner. It makes demands but no promises, offers few concessions and will not be held to the principle of reciprocation.
Of course the New Zealand government is not going to confess to trading 37 young Kiwi lives for the right to have New Zealand beef feature in American hamburgers, but despite that I believe that the truth is much closer to what the New Zealand government actually tells us. New Zealand stays with the US because it cannot envisage any other life. It knows that its partner is a bully but it remains loyal and makes token public appearances in support when it feels it must. All the while it is hoping for the best. Most particularly, it hopes that whether or not the US eventually faces the judgement of man and God, New Zealand will somehow be spared that same judgement.
There is a certain amoral dignity to the idea that New Zealand governments consciously exchange the lives of their soldiers for access to foreign markets but in fact New Zealand has few expectations of its “traditional partner”. Rather it seems to be hoping that when the time comes all the enemies which the US is making for itself in the world today will show forgiving kindness to America’s little helper, the Realm of New Zealand.
As a rule, the world does not work like that.
Sorry Geoff, that was from someone who was in the room.
Is this claim on the record? If someone in or close to the National government of the day can tell us that Keith Holyoake stipulated an additional quota for New Zealand beef exports to the US as a condition for sending New Zealand troops to Vietnam, then I would accept that and it would shift my perspective on the events.
Well written, Geoff, appreciated.
NZ is already on Russia’s list of “destructive” countries – that is countries aiding and abetting the US’s war on Russia as part of its National Defense Strategy of Global Domination, via sanctions and non-diplomacy. At the moment this just means it is willing to seek asylum seekers from NZ political madness, but at the moment maintains its usual diplomatic stance of keeping a hand out and being willing to advance positions of mutual interest.
But defeat to Russia is not going to be as piecemeal and beneficial as defeat by Vietnam. For all their hubris, the US govt of the Vietnam era were far superior to the administrations of this century, in wisdom and intelligence = they could read the room and be diplomatic. The current US crop only know brute force. They are the “our way or the highway” authoritarian regime sitting astride the world, and the reason many want to see the globalist 1%er’s self interest broken with another 4 year power struggle against Trump’s backer’s.
As Russia’s victory “culminates” (That’s for you Ben), and the BRICS arrange themselves to shuck off the MacDonalds Empire, some countries in the EU and Nato like Turkey and Hungary are far better placed and maneuvering to keep a foot in both camps. But with all the US-led “diplomatic” cancel culture is aimed at burning bridges between Russia and everyone else, the little cluster of anglophone 5eyes are going to be asked to sit behind a new rejectionist Iron Curtain. So no fruits allowed this time. Whether that is before or as part of n attempted war with China remains to be seen.
NZ involvement in the 1st WW was stupid and unecessary.
NZ involvement in the 2nd WW in Europe was also stupid and unecessary.
Post 1945 fear of Russia and Asia made siding with USA understandable.
Token forces in Malaya, Korea, Vietnam and peace keeping roles since then
with the pay off of USA support was quite smart really.
We could have a minimum military knowing the USA would be there.
So post 1945 NZ has played her cards well in the game of allies.
Have I got this wrong but who was the one who invaded Ukraine – a sovereign nation – Russia which is an authoritarian criminal state. Hardly a US sponsored war. That comment spoils the article.
Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation. That is correct. The role of the US was to use the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (which I have likened to the conflict between Britain and Ireland) to “weaken” Russia. The Irish analogy is apt. Germany wanted to exploit that conflict to weaken Britain. The Irish Free State had the sense not to be drawn into the Second World War even though the prospect of recovering the northern counties still occupied by Britain would have had a certain appeal. The Irish no doubt also understood the difficulties that would be created by forcibly incorporating a dissident unionist and Protestant minority into the Irish state.
Unfortunately under the urging of the US, Ukraine chose not to follow the Irish example of neutrality, patience and eventual reconciliation with its neighbour and former master. The US continues to sponsor the Ukraine’s war against Russia, but may yet leave Ukraine in the lurch, as it has left so many of its allies to to a tragic fate. My mention of Ukraine was not to vindicate Russia but to point out the folly of blindly following the US into every one of its foreign adventures.
War is getting very destructive and wrong, it must be treated as only a very last resort. We should not get involved in anybodies war . We must insist on using diplomacy instead of war. If the war mongers cannot use diplomacy, we can offer to be the negotiators and expect some backdown by both sides. We should not allow any war support.
Thank you Paul. That is pretty well how I see it as well
Say one thing for Holyoke, he kept our contribution in Vietnam to the bare minimum he could get away with. And while we maybe shouldn’t have gone, there were plenty of soldiers who were just itching to go – and “use their training.” I’m old enough to remember National Service or whatever it was called and many of my contemporaries seemed quite keen. Mind you the army doesn’t usually inculcate left-wing thought. Although the risible anti-Communist propaganda they use to make people watch did in fact have an effect on an old acquaintance of mine who joined – I think – the Communist Party of New Zealand or something because of it, and AFAIK was pretty much kicked out for it.
The talk is always about how many men we lost in various conflicts, for me the real tragedy is how many we have killed in those wars where we were one of the aggressors. I keep this opinion to myself mostly, you only need to look at any comments section to see how easily the masses are swayed by propaganda and how vehemently they argue for the opinions that have been planted in their heads.
My article looked at the issue from the perspective of New Zealand governments who have no concern for the innocent victims of these wars and as it happens little concern for the lives of their own troops. Taking an objective and long term view you are right, Daniel. The moral iniquity of New Zealand’s support for ecocide in Vietnam and genocide in Gaza and its complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity are the major concern for all right-thinking New Zealanders.