Australia and New Zealand: like-minded defense partner? Emmet McElhatton compares New Zealand and Australian approaches to defence as reflected in recent policy statements.

• Author: McElhatton, Emmet

From the Kiwi side of the Tasman the key defence relationship is clear. 'There is no strategic partnership closer than that with Australia" Throughout New Zealand defence and security literature of the time, this sense of mutual partnership is emphasised. 'The NZDF will operate with the ADF ... in support of a secure and peaceful region'. (2) Phrases like 'historic and cultural affinity' (3) and reference to 'alliance commitments' and 'common security interests' (4) only underline New Zealand's view of a strong and essential partnership between the two countries. The contrast with the key Australian defence document of the period is striking.

Reading Defence 2000 from a New Zealand vantage point, one is struck immediately by the relative absence of the NZ from the ANZAC defence horizon--a by no means unique situation. (5) Chapter five focuses on 'Australia's International Strategic Relationships'. It spends 47 paragraphs discussing key players from the Australian perspective before even mentioning New Zealand. When it does discuss the trans-Tasman relationship (in four paragraphs out of 60) the language is interesting. It begins by alluding to a trans-Tasman connection which, in defence, 'shows the imprint both of our strong similarities and of the sometimes surprising differences between us" The sub-text of the section is a firm respect for the NZDF, both its personnel and latent capabilities, and substantial differences with, even mistrust of, their political masters.

Australia believes that 'the high quality of New Zealand's forces is beyond question' and that the 'men and women of the NZDF will continue to constitute a highly professional force'. A nod is given to recent land forces equipment upgrades. However the higher level political concerns are quite clear. Despite referring to closely aligned strategic in terests, the Australians point to the view that 'New Zealand's strategic perceptions and outlook differ from Australia's in significant ways" The main difference is in threat perception and its impact on defence procurement. 'New Zealand's view that its strategic circumstances may not require the maintenance of capable air and naval forces differs from Australia's view of our own needs'. The paper goes on to state that Australia would regret any decision by a New Zealand government significantly to downgrade air or naval capabilities, a clear reference to the then impending review of the New Zealand air combat wing. A hint of Australia's feeling that New Zealand may not be pulling its weight in defence matters is given when the paper states the belief that strong New Zealand air and maritime forces would allow a more significant contribution to be made to mutual security interests.

Timor insight

We have to look no further than the contemporary INTERFET operation in East Timor for an insight into how each party views the trans-Tasman relationship. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's June 2000 publication Foreign and Security Policy Challenges drew attention to

a track record of joint effort with Australia on security issues within the region and further afield.... Experience in ... Timor underlines the contribution the defence relationship can make to key New Zealand goals. This is the language of a confident partner, equally contributing to the decision-making process.

Australia could not have undertaken to restore peace and security in East Timor under INTERFET except with the help of a large number of coalition partners and the co-operation of the Indonesian authorities. This is the language of a team leader, acknowledging his staff while at the same time letting us know who calls the shots. Which of the two passages better reflects the true power dynamics of the Timor operation?

A possible insight into Australia's view of the trans-Tasman relationship can be extrapolated from a telling sentence. Defence 2000 states that 'we both assume that as a matter of course we would come to each other's help in time of trouble" This statement is given nuance by a later...