Making Peace, Not War
In downsizing
its defense force, is New Zealand abandoning its responsibilities
or just facing facts
By
MICHAEL WARE
At an altitude
of 2,700 m, something went wrong. On March 20, Flight Lieut.
Phillip Barnes was taking part in war games over the Indian
Ocean, protecting Royal Australian Navy ships about 166 km
west of Perth. As he maneuvered to engage an "enemy" plane,
the Royal New Zealand Air Force pilot lost control of his
30-year-old A-4 Skyhawk jet fighter and was thrown into a
steep dive. Realizing the plane was beyond rescue, he ejected
and landed safely in the water. Barnes was lucky. A month
earlier, near his No. 2 squadron's Australian base at Nowra,
New South Wales, squadron leader Murray Neilson, a 37-year-old
father of two, had died in a Skyhawk crash.
Awaiting
the outcome of investigations into both incidents, Barnes'
unit last week received even more bad news. In a radical overhaul
of the New Zealand Defence Force, Prime Minister Helen Clark
announced on May 8 that No. 2 squadron, and New Zealand based
squadrons No. 14 and 75, are to be disbanded and their 17
Skyhawks and 17 Aermacchi trainers sold. Though the aging
of the planes was a cause of concern, the decision wasn't
prompted by the crashes. In the Labour government's view,
New Zealand simply cannot justify maintaining an air combat
force. For the members of the doomed units, losing men and
machines is part of a risky job. The shutdown-expected to
save $370 million over 10 years-is harder to stomach. Says
aircraft armorer Sergeant Glen Turner: "I feel sickened and
betrayed."
Under the
Clark government's new defense plan, the n.z.d.f. will receive
an infusion of $840 million over the next decade. But it will
no longer try to be a balanced force (with modest combat capabilities
in all three services); instead it will focus almost exclusively
on peacekeeping. Though such changes have been under discussion
for over two years, the plan's unveiling last week sparked
furious debate. Critics on both sides of the Tasman Sea accused
Clark's government of abrogating New Zealand's basic defense
responsibilities and undermining the anzac alliance. The government
says it has made the only realistic choice: since New Zealand
cannot hope to compete in an increasingly complex and costly
military race, it must accept that in the event of war it
will be heavily dependent on its allies.
After its
combat squadrons go, the r.n.z.a.f. will have only transport
planes-and the six Orion P3 surveillance aircraft of its maritime
patrol force. (Though these will receive a limited upgrade,
they will be left without anti-submarine technology.) The
Navy's third frigate, h.m.n.z.s. Canterbury, will not be replaced
when it is retired in 2005. Instead, the Navy will be given
extra patrol boats and a multi-role long-range vessel fitted
for Antarctic conditions. Its heavy-duty transport ship (h.m.n.z.s.
Charles Upham) will be sold and replaced by commercial charters.
The Army will be the greatest beneficiary of the defense funding
boost, with new armored transports and light vehicles, and
long-awaited upgrades in helicopters and radio technology.
Australian
defense analyst Paul Dibb said the n.z.d.f. now risks falling
"below what is a credible minimum"; defense industry lobbyist
Michael O'Connor said it was being whittled to "a local constabulary."
Australian Prime Minister John Howard repeated Canberra's
oft-stated position that New Zealand defense decisions were
a matter for New Zealand. But he warned that the plan would
have "domestic and international consequences."
It's unclear
how the defense cuts will affect the application of the Anzac
partnership, spelled out in the 1991 Closer Defence Relations
agreement. In a 1998 joint statement, Australia and New Zealand
committed themselves to sustaining "the capacity for effective
combined response to regional contingencies" and providing
resources to "ensure the effective achievement of these outcomes."
Australian
Defence Force Academy analyst Stewart Woodman, for one, doesn't
think the New Zealand plan is very different from the strategies
Australia set out in last year's Defence white paper, which
recognized that direct attack on Australia was unlikely and
proposed increasing the size and readiness of the Army at
the expense of other services. "Is New Zealand at the end
of the slide Australia is starting on?" Woodman asks. "If
you look at the price of defense technologies," he says, "even
the U.K., which spends a lot more than Australia, is saying
it can't keep up with the Americans."
Woodman
says "much larger countries than Australia are actually going
down this [more selective defense] path." It won't be much
consolation to Flight Lieut. Barnes and the other men of No.
2 squadron, but Australia's defense force could soon look
a lot like their own.
|
|
|
May 21, 2001 | No. 20
COVER
STORIES
Justice
Delayed
Does the hitch in Timothy McVeigh's execution point to deeper fbi problems?
The confessed bomber may get what he is due in the end, but he may also
have met one of his goals: making Americans doubt the way their government
pursues justice
TRAVELER'S
ADVISORY
SOUTH
PACIFIC
NEW ZEALAND: Loved to Death...
A top tourist spot's popularity has become a threat to its beauty
Defense: The focus shifts from force
to service
THE
ARTS
ART: Kathleen Petyarre's Utopia Dreamings
BOOKS: A Harry Potter wannabe cries foul
|
|
