In case anyone is still confused, New Zealand, a small nation of approximately 4 million people, without major military sea or airlift capability, currently stretching its military resources to the limit to deploy in East Timor (with the full support of the US, who felt obliged and would have been tied up in this role, had the Australians and New Zealand not offered) has pledged it's full support for the US.
We are not a large nation, and nothing can alter that fact - but the concept of a small nation seems too much of a stretch for some people - how many American cities of 4 million are expected to maintain their own welfare, health funding, armed forces, police fisheries, provide support to the UN, manage the environment or care for parks the size of several large cities and guard one of the largest coastlines in the world? We simply don't have the resources to deploy large numbers overseas, and the most we can realistically offer is intelligence support, light logistics and special forces. That is full support.
Why this spurns talk of ANZUS is strange - when New Zealand became anti-nuclear, the Russians began to try to court us - to turn us into one of their allies - we politely told them where they could stick that idea, and our support remained with the US. Our reason for rejecting nuclear ship visits is unarguable - the Russians would not let American ships use New Zealand as a safe haven in a nuclear war - we became a target. In such a large country as America you can be forgiven for saying 'so what - couldn't you take human losses like the rest of us?' - it's nothing like that at all - the Russians had our major centres targeted - these weapons radius of death was huge, covering our nation from cost to cost.
In global nuclear war, we would have lost everything.
No country has the right to ask another to be obliterated, just so they can have one more insignificant port of call.
As for some peoples comments about the Japanese threat, I don’t mind feeling gratitude towards the US, but I don’t like getting the impression you are giving that America was the selfless, heroic saviour of New Zealand, since America considered our nation just an option of advance towards the Japanese mainland, and as far as the battles of the Pacific go, would have taken any opportunity to defeat a major Japanese naval concentration.
If there is something you read time and time again about New Zealand’s involvement in the Second World War, it's the surprise of the Axis soldiers that someone could come from the other side of the world, to fight in someone else's war. That feeling is alive today - many of us would love to be there fighting the good fight - but it is not possible. But that is just the way New Zealanders are - in wwII we didn't like Hitler much from the start, and we felt people deserved a fair go. We offered our support then as we do now - as quickly as we could. Which is why we've felt so riled by some of these posts, some which are lies, and an insult to our national spirit. It's a fact that New Zealand gave more of itself during the Second World War than any other allied nation aside from Russia. Our soldiers were constantly thrown into the breach on Crete, in North Africa, and beside American troops in Italy, and our losses were greatly disproportionate to our size. We are all grateful to Americans who lost their lives in the Second World War - but we have no debt to you, just as no nation has a debt to us for our losses and sacrifice.
I seriously suggest some of you adjust your attitude from one of misplaced anger, and big-headedness, to one of mutual gratitude. At the end of the day, we are Allies.
As for all this talk of lefties and communism, you’ve got it all wrong – New Zealand government is usually made up of either a centre right, or a centre left party – centre is the operative word - the difference between the two is pretty small. Right, and the economy does alright but welfare suffers, so people seek a change and vote left, and we get a bit of a breather, then we need a bit of a change and vote back the other way. It means nothing.
I can’t get over how some people STILL don’t realise that that ONE article from yesterday does not represent the opinion of the PM – she is for supporting the US, as validated by the US President himself.
I spent a year in your very fair country a few years ago for grad school (Victoria U.).
I think you make some fair points. There is a lot of ignorance going around here, though it is not surprising - most Americans I come into contact with think New Zealand is somewhere in Europe.
Kiwi troops suffered more than their fair share in both world wars and Korea and Vietnam and the Gulf. Rommel, in fact, rated them the best Allied troops he ever faced. I am not sure he was wrong.
Your basic understanding of Lange's confrontation with the U.S. in 1986 is of course correct. I cannot, however, agree with your evaluation of it.
Lange's anti-nuke feelings, reflecting as they did much of the Labour caucus, got the better of him. Ultimately he wanted to be part of ANZUS but only on his own terms.
Sidebar: I knew some Kiwis who felt that Lange only fought on the nuclear issue because he wanted cover with the Left part of his caucus for Douglas's radical privatization and free market schemes.
The fact remains that New Zealand was the only treaty ally that had a problem with the U.S.'s confirm-or-deny policy on nukes, though I know Norway came close to it. What was worse is that Shultz essentially offered a compromise to Lange, offering to unofficially send only ships without nuclear warheads on board. Lange rejected the compromise, noting that he did not want even nuclear *powered* ships in New Zealand waters. That effectively ruled out most of our surface combatants and all of our submarine forces.
New Zealand is indeed a small country and would have suffered disproportionately from any nuclear attack. But she is hardly the only small country that was in the same boat. Luxembourg (or the other Low Countries) did not feel similarly dissuaded from staying in NATO despite the fact that she could expect that a single nuclear blast could efectively wipe the country out. But she did not have the luxury of being 10,000 miles away from the nearest Soviet forces and having little strategic value.
I simply find it disappointing that given New Zealand's staunch contributions and support for the British Empire and the West in general for so many years that she (or at least Lange) bailed out at a crucial time when the apparent costs to her for doing so were apparently negligible.
As for Helen Clark, I met her briefly back when she was a shadow cabinet minister and did not think much of her at the time. I hope that her position is not as was reported in this thread, but then I would not be surprised.
Anyhow, I am sure that most Kiwis - despite a lingering anti-U.S. resentment - are firmly with the U.S. in this hour of trial. Despite your limited resources I hope that you are in fact able to help out in the common cause in the coming months.