The Shangri-La Dialogue is currently underway in Singapore. It is a gathering of defence ministers (and Prime Ministers in a couple of cases) to discuss regional security and defence issues. It began yesterday and goes all weekend.

Andrew Little is there representing NZ. Anthony Albanese is there representing Australia. Other notable attendees are US Secretary of Defence, Lloyd Austin, Chinese (the commie China that is) Minister of National Defence General Li Shangfu, and ministers of Defence from the UK, Germany, Aus, Singapore, Japan, Canada, Indonesia, Korea and Sweden. Heads of Defence Forces are there from Australia, Philippines, Japan, the US Coastguard, Pakistan and other smaller countries.

Anthony Albanese delivered the keynote address last night. Earlier in the day, Andrew Little gave a speech during the session discussing nuclear dimensions of regional security. The two speeches revealed the remarkably divergent paths which NZ and Aus have taken over the last two decades (at least) in terms of defence and security issues. The bottom line is that Australia has heavily invested in its ADF as a means to increase peace in the region, but NZ has heavily neglected its NZDF in a misguided approach that peace is achieved by sticking our head in the sand.

Let’s start with Andrew LIttle’s speech. He begins by paying homage to the pagan gods of climate change (“Pacific Island Countries are finding that climate change is a security and existential threat in our part of the world”), but then correctly highlights the “increasing geostrategic competition in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions.” He lists the following specific issues as heightening tensions:

  • Larger economies significantly growing their military spending and capabilities,
  • Intensification of military exercising and challenges to freedoms of navigation,
  • Destabilising actions in the South China and East China Seas,
  • Rhetoric and actions that might disrupt the peaceable status quo across the Taiwan Strait,
  • A Pacific Rim state, Russia, defying the rules-based international order with its unlawful and immoral invasion of Ukraine,
  • And the development of long-range ballistic missiles by a pariah state, North Korea.

And specifically around nuclear weapons:

  • Rhetoric around the possible use of nuclear weapons becoming more prominent, including false categorisations of so-called tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons,
  • States in the region adding to their nuclear weapons stockpiles, including North Korea,
  • And growing concerns about a deficit of prudent transparency about the real size of those stockpiles.

He talks about NZ’s position on nuclear weapons – that “all nuclear weapons should be verifiably and irreversibly eliminated”, and pulls out the old trope that “nuclear-powered vessels have also been banned in our waters since the COld War, and this will not change.” Tell me, what is the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons? I know of no logical deduction to be made between morally condemning the possession and use of nuclear weapons and banning the use of nuclear power. It is silly and compromises our defence relations with not just the USA, UK and Europe, but now also Australia now that they are going to have nuclear powered ships too.

Little goes on to say:

It is not enough to cross our fingers and hope for the best. Rational analysis and cool heads are required in the present circumstances. When we see the rising geopolitical tensions and the limited effectiveness of some international institutions, then we must acknowledge that the presence of nuclear weapons, adds a risk of miscalculation that could be truly catastrophic.

And:

For small liberal democracies like New Zealand, we do not get to avoid the real-life effects of geostrategic competition. Our way of life, including the freedoms we cherish and which are guaranteed to all peoples by the UN Charter, can never be fully safeguarded from the effects of nuclear conflict in a world that tolerates nuclear weapons.

This is a pleasant change from Helen Clark’s idiocy when she declared that NZ lives in a “benign strategic environment.” At least, it’s a change in rhetoric. Is it a change in behaviour? No, not really.

Andrew Little then ends with some giant clangers that need to be zeroed in on and magnified. Read this, emphasis my own:

New Zealanders know that our views on nuclear weapons are not shared by everyone. We acknowledge that, in the end, it is for sovereign states to determine how they will ensure their national security, consistent with international law. Do not confuse my country’s moral clarity with wishful thinking.

So New Zealanders must be prepared to equip ourselves with trained defence personnel, assets and materiel, and appropriate international relationships to protect our own national security. And we are.

We are increasing our military spending and modernising our capabilities across land, sea and air. We have our most precious assets, our people, deployed to hot spots around the world.

We are?????? Where is the modernisation plan for the NZDF then Mr Little? What are the plans to replace the two aging Anzac Class frigates? What about the Vietnam-era L119 Howitzers used by the Army? What are we doing with the LAVs? What sized unit is the output for the Army – is it an ad hoc battalion (which is actually no more than a glorified company), or are we going to offer something more useful to our allies like a proper multi-combat role Brigade?

43 Bushmaster vehicles have just been accepted into service, but those have been years in the making after the disaster that was the Armoured Pinzgauers which only provided any value being used for target practice when we got rid of them in 2018:

After less than a decade of service, the NZ Defence Force’s armoured Pinzgauer vehicles are headed to their final resting place – as target practice for Kiwi soldiers.

Some of the vehicles have been out of action since 2013 due to problems with their axles, and will now serve as fodder for missiles on training ranges.

NZDF’s Pinzgauers to find peace in pieces (newsroom.co.nz) – May 2018
Army gets new $100m Bushmaster fleet as resignation requests dip after pay bump – NZ Herald

The truth is, Labour have presided over a declining NZDF since 2017, exacerbated by the COVID hotel guarding duties, stagnant pay, worsening conditions in housing and barracks and no plan to truly upgrade our capabilities or equipment in anything other than an ad hoc and piecemeal fashion. The Bushmasters are a great example of that – ad hoc and singular. Not to mention years in the making for which Andrew Little deserves zero credit.

So let’s move on to Anthony Albanese’s keynote speech about what Australia is doing in defence matters. He starts off by making the link between strategic capability and diplomatic capacity, and that one can’t exist without the other:

I’m deeply honoured that the International Institute for Strategic Studies has invited me to deliver the keynote address at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue.

For two decades, this highly-respected forum has brought together experts in both defence and diplomacy.

Longstanding recognition that building peace, security and stability depend on both strategic capability and diplomatic capacity, reinforcing each other.

What sort of country thinks it can wither away its hard power and still be listened to, solely on soft power and diplomatic relations? That is an approach which has never worked, never less so today with geostrategic competition in the Asia-Pacific region.

Albanese points out that stability must not be taken for granted, taking aim at post-Cold War fools who thought everything was suddenly all right again:

We’ve seen the flaw in that kind of thinking in the past.

The benign assumption post-Cold War that the spread of globalisation, free trade, and new technologies would create a more open, more stable world.

Some talked about ‘the end of history’, the beginning of a new world order, a unipolar era. 

There was a strand of complacency underpinning that.

He also says that just as it was foolish to imagine that conflict is impossible, so it is to believe that war is inevitable:

Peace is not a gift and it’s never a given.

It’s not the default setting of any part of the world.

It has to be built, pursued, defended and upheld.

And when nations such as ours choose to promote peace, we are not opting-out from the big questions of security and stability.

We are not choosing the smooth ride, or the passive course.

We are committing to a whole-of-nation effort.

That’s my Government’s focus in Australia.

Investing in our capability and investing in our relationships.

Strengthening our deterrence and our diplomacy.  

And bringing both to our presence in this region.

Am I wrong in seeing that as a rebuke for NZ in particular? “The smooth ride”, “the passive course” – that is exactly what NZ has been doing since the start of the millennium! While NZ has let Australia shoulder the burden of being able to stand up against malignant actors in the region, we have also been deluding ourselves that our diplomatic power can somehow just convince everyone to get along.

Because there is no point in wanting to uphold the ‘rules-based international order’, in particular things like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea if nobody has the *hard* power to actually uphold it. That is why Aus has signed up to AUKUS – because there is one particular power in the region who has vastly upgraded their defence capabilities, and are not afraid to pursue their illegal goals of territorial expansion and maritime dominance.

The submarines we are acquiring – the single biggest leap in Australia’s defence capability in our history – reflect our determination to live up to those expectations [of partnership].

To be a stronger partner and a more effective contributor to stability in our region. 

Diplomacy is, obviously the first port of call to avoid conflict and deescalate tensions. But what if bullies like China don’t listen?

Multilateral institutions are essential to writing the rules and keeping them relevant.

But reinforcing the rules – and upholding them – depends on our capability as well.

Because Australia was not just one of the first countries to work on creating the United Nations.

We were also part of the first UN peacekeeping mission, supporting Indonesian independence.

Backing our words with our deeds.

Our Government’s investments in new capability and technology and personnel are – unapologetically – about our national defence and our national sovereignty.

But they are also an investment in regional stability, strengthening our capacity to contribute to the collective security of the Indo-Pacific.

From shared peacekeeping missions such as the regional assistance mission in Solomon Islands, to providing essential support in times of humanitarian and environmental disaster, most recently in Vanuatu.

…

In boosting our nation’s defence capability, Australia’s goal is not to prepare for war but to prevent it – through deterrence and reassurance and building resilience in the region.

Doing our part to fulfil the shared responsibility all of us have to preserve peace and security.

The two paths taken by NZ and Australia could not be more divergent. Both aim for the same goal – regional peace and stability. One country has invested in its defence force and alliances, and is now ready to stand up to any power in the region which is unwilling to abide by the rules. One country has not.

And as much as Andrew Little says that he and his government is investing in the NZDF, the facts say otherwise.