New Zealand’s Strategic Perspective

An enigmatic approach to strategy?

An imperial past

• The legacy• Since 1840: 100 years within

imperial umbrella• Upheavals: WWI, WW2• End of British Empire: continuing

collective security arrangements 1945-2007

Strategy: practice

• Not a vacuum• Practitioners: do strategy, however

imperfectly, in the face of constantly altering conditions…

• Strategy over four decades…• Flexibility, continuity, discontinuity,

seeking advantage.

The New Zealand Strategic Context• Tension of apparent/actual remoteness.• Extent of NZ’s direct geography.• Thin dimensions of NZ’s trading

interests: thin and long threads, easily broken.

• Alliances (CP, ANZUS, FPDA), direct obligations, indirect obligations.

Northern & Southern extensions…• Cook Is. & Nuie & Tokelaus• Ocean area larger than F & T.• Sub-antarctic: Ak Is, Campbell• Ross Dependency beyond 60 dg south• Australian Antarctic Territory• More than half Antarctica…• North Pole…

Improvisation

• Strength, merits & difficulties of No.8 wire.

• Recognition of NZ priorities.• Constantly fitting in… with whom?• Mutual interest, seldom single

interest business.

Gaining strategic advantage

• Is different for NZ than for larger powers.

• Maximisation of gains and minimisation of losses.

• Taking measures to do this, & letting advantage fall NZ’s way.

Collaborative, collective

• Underlying approach to use of the armed forces: dictated by necessity;

• NZ does not have the economic, diplomatic, or military strength to easily act alone.

• Both actual (geographical) & conceptual.

NZ armed forces in transition…• RNZAF, RNZN, NZ Army• 3 professional services: operational

synergy• With other armed forces…• Own patrols…• Interoperability between our own

services & with others is the key.• Strategic intentions signalled partially

by capabilities maintained.• Unspoken assumption: USN, ADF.

Foreign Policy & operation of the armed services

• Foreign policy is not just trade, although trade is a core strategic requirement.

• The Austronesian (ANZ + Pac Is) neighbourhood;

• The wider realms: distant places, varying roles…

Promotion of NZ’s interests

• Grappling with different matters in wide variety of places.

• Gaining long-term advantage.• Working to prevent diminution of

those interests.

Future directions for NZ’s armed forces• Patrol of the bits of the neighbourhood that

belong to NZ + assisting others in distant places…

• From tropics to Antarctic: a necessarily Australasian series of enterprises + other powers (US, France, Britain…)

• Flexibility to be increased.• Frequency of MRCs: less lead time.• Low level/small campaigns/wars; larger ones.• Awareness of the unlikely possibilities as well as

the likely (CTKP).• Breadth & depth argument: future will require

both.

Where & how

• Bipartisan approaches & differences…• The local, the regional, & further

afield…• Geography is king: physical & human.• Breadth of NZ’s commitments

exemplifies our requirement for engagement: ultimately this comes down to freedom to trade & direct security.

Shaping the practice of strategy• Political context: within & outside NZ: sets

boundaries.• Absolute requirement to reflect as well as to

practice within the daily pressures.• If the practice of strategy becomes defunct:

risk of becoming an adjunct of others powers’ strategy.

• To a degree NZ is always vulnerable to that consideration.

• NZ response has generally been to take cases on merits: strengths & flaws in this approach.

Friction, chance…

• Murphy• The irrational• No-one has a monopoly on wisdom• Fast moving pace of events require

thoughtful contemplation of all sorts of circumstances (most of which won’t occur) long before an eventuality arrives.

Consequences of strategy…

• The foreseen & the unforeseen…• Less directly difficult when

strategy done with partners…• Likely to be more difficult with

unilateral action.

Dealing with unfavourable circumstances

• An inability to be able to effectively respond, not just NZ but crucially, other usual partners…

• Dec.1941 one manifestation: 5 mths in 1942 an absolute vulnerability.

The Nuclear future…

• Proliferation.• Terrorism.• Nuclear war.• WMD troubles.• Major regional conflict interventions

involve nuclear armed powers.• Nuclear power.

Interstate limited war

• One state against a collection• Collection against collection• Flexiblity of coalitions: less trouble

about getting formed & started:• More difficult to end.• Long term commitment…• Discretionary warfare: Middle East• Necessary war: Australia• Other commitments along the

operational spectrum…

Intrastate trouble

• Greater the trouble, the more intractable the problems are???

• Help under these circumstances.• Management of intractable situations…• Long term commitment.• Discretion: to go in, to leave, to stay out.• Outcomes: serving NZ’s interests + those of

the international community.

Use of resources in direct assistance• Economic• Diplomatic• Military• Deleterious effects: to effectively

contribute, need to minimise ongoing damage to NZ’s own resources.

• Increase in size, number of platforms, capabilities.

Next 40 years…

• Position of the United States.

• China/India rivalry.• Reg. nuclear war.• China/Taiwan Korean

Pen.• Fiji.• Pac Is.• Possession of maritime

estates.• Middle East.• Indonesia.

• Demographic alterations.• Economic depression.• Environmental shifts.• Simultaneous conflicts on

different levels of war.• Political change in major

states…

The bleak future

• The disruptive world.• A disrupted neighbourhood.• Military, political, economic,

demographic, climatic upheavals in series…

• Weak powers even at a distance will be challenged.

Being prepared

• To avoid being merely reactive.• To minimize impact of situations of

disadvantage to NZ.• Contributions: military, diplomatic,

economic, political, social.• Keeping challenges away: distant

solutions are better for NZ: assisted by physical geography (but in modern warfighting, distance is not an absolute guarantee).

Into the murk…

• NZ has some discretion thanks to geography & two shields…

• Setting priorities but considering the widest range of possibilities, however unlikely.

• Bedrock geography: NZ is a maritime nation, & needs maritime partners (great & small).

• China, India, US, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, SE Asia, Austronesia.

Conclusions

• NZ’s strategic perspective is custom-made.

• Promotion of distant peace & security protects NZ’s vital interests abroad (trade) & at home.

• If the sea is a highway, NZ needs to be the secure farm at the end of the road.

• This will only be the case with careful attention to strategy, & continued good fortune.