(Page 2 of 3)
It would also make sense for a country in such a situation to grapple its allies to its bosom with hoops of steel. However, far from doing this, New Zealand’s government gives the impression that it does not take alliances and mutual defense obligations seriously. Indeed it sees alliances as undesirable.
Its defense alliance with Australia and the U.S. (the ANZUS treaty) has been dissolved. U.S. warships are banned from its ports because the U.S. Navy will not state whether or not they are carrying nuclear weapons. Even nuclear-propelled ships are forbidden.
It seems ironically appropriate that New Zealand’s national anthem begins with the words “God Defend New Zealand!” It doesn’t look as if anyone else is going to. It is assumed that any enemy will have to get past Australia (and ultimately the US).
New Zealand is not exactly neutral — it is still part of the historic West, it is culturally and in other ways still very much part of the Anglosphere, and for obvious reasons enjoys a uniquely close relationship with Australia. It has sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, as it did previously to Korea and Vietnam.
In the short time I spent there it was emphasized to me that the broad-spectrum leftism of the government does not represent the whole of political thinking or culture by any means — that was strongly put over several days of meetings with leading political, cultural and media figures.
The feeling seems to be that the present government, under the far-left Helen Clark, is on the way out.
BUT THE PRESENT government’s turning away from the world, from responsibility, from a sense of mutual and reciprocal obligations, from an idea of the Anglosphere nations hanging together in a century which looks to be challenging enough, and even from self-respect, does show what can happen very quickly when a Gramscian campaign to gain the commanding heights of cultural and political power succeeds.
Certainly, New Zealand faces no obvious military threat, and it has not been alone in adopting such selfish policies: the governments of Europe indulged in even more gross free-riding when they allowed the US to defend them from the Soviet Union, but in many ways New Zealand’s government seems to show the malaise in a particularly sharp form.
New Zealand has never been threatened by invasion but until now has had a proud tradition of being prepared to contribute — mightily! — to defend the right.
It is as if previous generations of New Zealanders felt that their uniquely safe and privileged strategic environment gave them a certain responsibility beyond their shores.
The flightless birds of New Zealand, which had evolved in conditions of perfect safety, isolated from predators by the vast distances of the Pacific, were wiped out when the Polynesian Maoris arrived.
Only the kiwi survived to become a national symbol.
PERHAPS, IF THIS is not symbolic lesson enough, New Zealanders should take note of what happened on one of their own dependencies, the Chatham Islands.
There the native people, the Moriori, though Polynesians genetically and racially akin to the warlike New Zealand Maoris, were pacifist by religion and would not defend themselves.
It is a story that hangs over New Zealand history, though for reasons of political correctness it is not dwelt upon today. It’s another of those stories which could be made into a movie — a sad one — but won’t be.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Simon| 11.14.08 @ 3:51AM
A little research might've helped here and made you look less silly. Firstly the Air Base you went to was Woodbourne... http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about-us/hq-and-bases/woodbourne.htm ...it is a support base and has no aircraft resident and hasn't for years. Surely you checked before you ranted.
Secondly the 'far left' government you talk of has spent far more on military capital and hardware improvement than any government since the 1960s. The strike aircraft , Vietnam era A-4ks, were well past their sellby date, even with hardware and avioncs upgrades and rather than take up the dubious offer of very old A model F-16s, already paid for by Pakistan but seized, the military felt the money was better spent elsewhere. Most senior military figures agreed with the decision..but hey, what would they know?
Thirdly, the anti nukes legislation was a) passed in 1984, b) has been supported across political lines without any real question or though of overturning it as it's immensely popular and and attempt to overturn is seem as political suicide. But don't let the will of the people get in the war of your rant
Fourthly, your brief history of NZ politics and the left is both resoundingly ignorant and absolutely incorrect. Do a little research and have a rough idea of what you are talking about before you write about NZ next time please.
Fifth..ANZUS has not been disbanded
Sixth...the new Centre-Right government (and unless you are some sort of obsessed crazy, you'd be likely to regard Clark's goverment as centre-left rather than some 'far-left' regime, is pretty likely to carry on with the Labour policies as they exist with regard to Foreign policy and defence. They too I think would perhaps look at your piece and opine that it has at best a slender grasp on anything beyond that of an ill informed rant.
You don't seem to have put a large amount of conscious thought into this piece and have written something that was both clouded by agenda and at odds with those who know somewhat better than you. It is, and lets be generous, drivel.
Sorry.
Michael| 11.18.08 @ 7:02AM
Hal, could you please name one time the NZAF Strike Force has ever been used in anything other than an excercise?
The answer is, no, it never has.
Your ignorance but none the less sense of self assurance does make me think you've been talking to Dr Wayne Mapp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Mapp
A similarly educated fool to yourself, he was given the honour of being the Political Correctness Eradicator. A position he effectively made his own and has secured himself a place of obsurity and derision.
Michael| 11.18.08 @ 7:09AM
A few points.
Fiji has a larger Army than NZ.
Q -How did Singapores defenses hold up again?
A-No too good.
Q-What is Singapores first act when threatened? A-Invade Malaysia and secure power & water. Why they have a strike force and Medium Artillary. (They train here).