New Zealand Defence White Wash 2016

But ‘Asia’ isn’t a single actor wielding power. It’s a grouping of many states with conflicting strategic objectives. ‘Power’ isn’t a measure of size but rather a state’s willingness to use it. The White Paper points to the enduring nature of terrorism, resource competition, WMD proliferation and information technology as features shaping New Zealand’s strategic outlook. It’s an odd list, producing policy gems like ‘the adoption of technology has a number of advantages in the military context’, but missing other factors such as the rise of Asian nationalism, climate change and any serious discussion of military technology trends.

ASPI Article  

This blog entry was delayed by a combination circumstances including yours truly moving house. I have been wanting to address the New Zealand Defence White Paper 2016 (hereafter White Paper) since it's release 2 months ago. I feel Peter Jennings offers the best analysis of the White Paper's failings. My intention is to summarise my thoughts on why the White Paper is a white wash.

In previous articles I have covered deficiencies in the NZDF concerning a lack of high end combat capabilities. For this reason I have chosen to cover other matters in this article. The same goes for for more specific topics like roles of Air and Sea Power in New Zealand's security. My intention as per usual is to to offer the reader a fresh perceptive they won't find anywhere else. If the reader would like me to expand upon any of the issues I have raised , please feel free to leave a comment below.


From my standpoint: New Zealand lacking a coherent defence strategy is what shines through the contents of the White Paper. For a moment I will follow this line of thinking. What reasons/symptoms of the aforementioned lack of strategy? Space doesn't permit me to provide a detailed and complete answer. Some glaring symptoms can be examined in brief.

The refusal to acknowledge China's role in heightened tensions around territorial disputes in Asia is glaring. To what extent denial is behind the blinkers worn by the New Zealand Government as opposed to a lack of strategic thinking is worthy of debate. In writing this article I hope to spur on such a debate amongst the public and academic circles.

Staying with nation states, did anybody else notice how the contents of the White Paper defied New Zealand's geography? Let me explain my point: Any threat conventional military threat (read China) to New Zealand will come from Asia. Put another way interstate warfare is unlikely to originate from the Antarctic in the time frame covered by the White Paper.


I believe defending New Zealand in the event of a wartime emergency is a blind spot in current defence thinking. It is only fitting that I finish up with a symptom of such a dangerous blind spot. New Zealand's defence ties with countries like India , Japan and Indonesia either barley rate a mention or they don't at all. In fact Indonesia is omitted all together.

Who in their right mind would think neglecting defence ties with our security partners in Asia is a good idea? Has New Zealand placed a over reliance on the International Rules Order at the expense of diplomatic and military ties with the Asia – Pacific region? Certainly I would make the case , New Zealand has placed all it's cards in the falling house known as the International Rules Based Order.

The contents of the White Paper is a reflection how little public and political interest there is in New Zealand's defence and foreign policies. There can be no no doubt the lack of debate around the White Paper stems from disinterest. I can only foresee the level of interest increasing in the event of New Zealand facing a wartime emergency at which times all of our chickens will be coming home to roost.