Posted on 09/22/2001 5:34:04 AM PDT by Hamish Price
There has been some interesting debate on this site about the New Zealand government's stance over ANZUS. Some of the criticism of New Zealand was based on a rather mischievous piece of reporting in one of our daily newspapers, which claimed that the PM said that ANZUS was no longer operational, therefore New Zealand was not prepared to help out the United States.
The ANZUS treaty has not been operational since 1986. Last week, the Australian Government used it as a pretext for supporting the US in its campaign against terrorism.
What the NZ PM actually said was that ANZUS is not the excuse she uses in supporting the US-lead campaign against terror, since its a rather irrelevant document. She said that New Zealand would contribute to the world efforts to bring about an and to terrorism, and that New Zealand could reasonably expect to contribute a high degree of intelligence resource (New Zealand takes the lead role in monitoring intelligence activities in the South Pacific; Australia cooperates in the intelligence relationship, which includes the US, the UK and Canada by monitoring intelligence in South-East Asia.). The PM noted that we would also contribute our special force SAS unit, if called on by the coalition to do so at the appropriate time. To me, that sounds like a reasonable response by a very small country at the bottom of the world.
With respect to the ANZUS treaty, this is not an anti-terrorist pact. It is essentially a military alliance that had an important role to play, in the context of Western security, in the post-WWII and cold war period. It is of very limited relevance in our region today. A clear example of this is the military intervention in East Timor. The US is not a part of the regional alliance in East Timor. Australia takes the leading role, heavily supported by New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, the Philippines, and other countries in the area. The point is that regional security no longer relies entirely on traditional Western military alliances. We have to cooperate with countries that in the past have been hostile to security interests to protect regional security. We are seeing that again on a more global scale, with statements from both Russia and China that they wish to play major roles in this fight against terrorism. That is necessary and fundamental: the US government immediately realised that it could not deal with the problem by acting unilaterally, as it has in the past with state-to-state conflicts. Terrorism is a cross-border, global problem.
The tragedies in New York and Washington are not about traditional Western security alliances.
The NATO response has parallels, but the context is different. When NATO invoked its "attack against one is an attack against us all" article, I would note that NATO is an effective and operational security pact. However, non-NATO members of the EU have not withheld their support for countering terrorism simply because they are not signatories to the NATO Treaty.
British PM Tony Blair commented that the UK was helping the United States because the US had helped Britain during World War II. Again, that's the "we're helping you because you're our ally." It doesn't explain why China, Russia, Pakistan or India are committing themselves to this effort, since none of those countries have been allies in the recent, or distant past.
The NZ government sees the events of September 11 not as an attack on the United States, but an attack on humanity. Of course, if it had been a state-sponsored act, directed against US military installations or political figures, then it would be different. But this seige was aimed at inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible. It was an act against humanity. In this respect, it was an attack against all throughout the world who oppose human atrocity.
Indeed, this does set the standard for intervention at a very high level. Like many so-called civilised countries, in the past we have not always stood up for those who are suffering from the excesses of evil regimes. Globally, no country has done enough. From now on, those who are standing up and opposing terrorism in the US will no longer be able to turn a blind eye to despotic activities in the future. If we say that terrorism in the US is a blight on humanity, then we cannot sit idly by doing nothing when the same appalling actions take place in other parts of the world.
It is not realistic that all human rights abuses will be stamped out in our lifetimes. But if the US is genuinely determined to engage humanity in addressing the most excessive and callous inhumanity first, we will have made a really important start.
Hamish Price
Matt Robson is a hell of a nice guy. He is an idealist, and is heart is in the right place. He is finding the realisties of Government and politics somewhat more difficult to deal with. Sometimes, the most politically correct option is by no means the most politically feasible.
Matt Robson does take what he considers a genuinely moral approach to politics. This sometimes puts him in a precarious position: he was pretty much laughed out of Parliament last year when, as Minister responsible for our prisons, he advocated conjugal visits for prison inmates, and said something along the lines of "many prisoners would be much better people if they just had a glass of milk and a cuddle every now and then."!
With respect to foreign policy, the left-wing Alliance Party is trying to outbid the equally left-wing Green Party over their respective anti-free trade stances. This is a difficult battle for the Alliance, since the Labour Party is generally committed to expanding overseas markets for New Zealand exports, and the Alliance knows it has to be sensitive to a view that minority government parties should only exercise so much power before they go down the same road as the New Zealand First Party in 1998, which, to put it mildly, many people believe held the Government to ransom.
The way this has been handled politically is for the Labour and Alliance parties to agree to disagree over free trade. It's quite a shrewd manouver: the Labour Party, supporting free trade, attains the support of other pro-free-trade parties in Parliament, while the Alliance Party stands alongside the Green party in voting against free trade agreements in Parliament. The Alliance expresses its view without tearing apart the Government, while still keeping, in the mind of its own constituency, the impression that it is not selling out its core policies to the Labour Party.
New Zealand is vigorously pursuing free trade deals with Hong Kong at present, and would like the US to be receptive to a similar option. There are major sticking points in the trade of agricultural commodities. As you know, New Zealand is one of few countries not to subsidise or provide protection for its agricultural products. We have generally among the lowest tariffs in the OECD, and successive governments have altogether eliminated tariffs on almost all imported goods in New Zealand. Several US senators and congressmen have visited New Zealand recently expressing support for a free trade agreement with the US, and it is up to the Bush Administration to progress this.
With regard to Matt Robson's "poll" for views on support for military intervention, this is the second poll the Minister has launched. The first poll asked the rather loaded question "Should New Zealand's aid be tied to trade objectives". You might think that respondents would overwhelmingly state that aid should not be linked to overseas development concerns. In fact, at one point, 70% of respondents said the opposite. It was a slight embarrassment to the Minister, as it was not quite the response that a rhetorical question might receive.
I might also suggest that the current question, on whether New Zealand should support military retaliation, or "bringing those responsible to justice", is also rather ambiguous. The two responses are not mutually exclusive. As you say, 62% want military retaliation against the perpetrators; I would personally think that a reasonable number of people who want to bring the terrorists to account might believe that a military response would play a large part in that.
A better question might have asked: "Do you support military action as one of the components in bringing the terrorists to justice and countering the root causes of terrorism?" A yes/no answer would have given a much better idea of political feeling. Notwithstanding, as you say, that one might assume that most of the visitors to Matt Robson's site might be Matt Robson supporters, with similar views...
Kind regards,
Hamish Price
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.