Correspondence.

• Author: Southon, Gray

Sir,

David McGraw in the last issue (vol 31, no 1) provides an excellent overview of the conflict between two archetypes of military defence policy, but unfortunately ignores the fact that national security issues have moved to very different fields such as terrorism, failed states, bio-security, climate change and drugs. It is not so much a case of a benign environment that we are faced with now, but with risks that need co-operation between countries to address.

GRAY SOUTHON

Tauranga

Sir,

In your last issue (vol 31, no 1) David McCraw draws an interesting comparison between 'Idealist' and 'Realist' defence policies--between 'collective security' and a jaundiced view of the international neighbourhood, on the one hand, and 'common security' and a more trusting approach, on the other.

McCraw argues that the right policy for the weak is to ally themselves with the strong and that the 'optimists' currently in control of New Zealand's defence policy have, in their neglect of their 'natural' allies, exposed the country to greater risk.

There are five factors to consider which seem germane to this argument:

* The weak do not get given a piggy back by the strong free of charge. What is the price that is being asked?

* The weak get to inherit the enemies of the strong irrespective of whether or not there is any reason for enmity between them (and the stronger the 'ally' the more potential enemies it is likely to have). For instance, had New Zealand remained in ANZUS, it is inconceivable that it would have been able to avoid entanglement in the invasion of Iraq. Only the brave would argue that participating in that war has not compromised the security of both of our former ANZUS partners and of our other 'natural' ally, Britain.

* If a nation relies on allies for its defence, it becomes far more vulnerable, should those allies default, than had it based its defence planning from the outset on the understanding that it had no allies.

* It seems foolhardy to anticipate that a...