Judith Collins tells the international security policy gathering in Germany 'we can’t depend on one nation’s taxpayers' to protect the rules-based international order.
Collin’s said “Old style ‘cold war’ commentators are naive to think that the Pacific is without threat.”. Isn’t it the opposite? It is old style ‘cold war’ commentators who think the Pacific is threatened (by China). They are right about one thing and that’s there’s a threat but the threat comes from the old style ‘cold war’ thinkers who have not yet adapted to the 21st century reality that the US century of world domination is no longer sustainable
"Collins also briefly addressed New Zealand’s disapproval of the Cook Island’s signing of a strategic partnership agreement with China last week, reiterating the Government’s view that it had not been adequately consulted over the deal. “There is enormous (geostrategic) competition in the Pacific region… We’d like to see this agreement, as would the people of the Cook Islands,” she told the conference event."
Will the New Zealand government commit to revealing the details of agreements it is negotiating with other states even while negotiations are under way? Will it commit to revealing the details of all agreements it has already entered into with other states? No, it will not. Therefore it has no right to demand such transparency from the government of the Cook Islands.
Collins went on to say "the Blue Pacific is sparsely populated with an underwater continent with enormous wealth on the seabed". So is that what it is really all about? Is it just like the cause of "Ukrainian freedom" which now seems to be tied up with deposits of rare-earth metals in that country? Does Ukraine have to pay with both blood and treasure for the privilege of being a pawn of Anglo-American imperialism? Are the Cooks being threatened with military intervention because they have the audacity to think that they should decide how to use their own resources?
Collins also argues for more money to be spent on the New Zealand military. More than double the present rate of expenditure if Donald Trump is to be given his way. Yet that is rather odd coming from a government which focuses on effectiveness, efficiency, achieving targets and so on.
Because we have to ask "What has the New Zealand military ever achieved for us?". It has been involved in quite a few wars in the past half century, and has won none of them. It suffered a humiliating loss in Vietnam, failed in Iraq (while fraudulently claiming victory), was trounced in Afghanistan, is staring defeat in the face in Ukraine and a probable drubbing from Yemen. To top it off it managed to sink one fifth of its operational naval fleet on a reef off Samoa. If any other department of state had such a record of complete and unmitigated failure going back fifty years, would it have even more money thrown at it?
All this illustrates the astonishing contradictions of the colonialist regime. It pretends to stand for the rights of nations and peoples, yet tries to bully the government of the Cook Islands, not to mention its own people. It demands transparency from others but offers none of its own. Like a dog in a manger it accuses China of coveting the wealth of the Pacific, yet clearly wants that wealth to go to its own patrons in Washington and Canberra. It calls for peace and the rule of law, but seeks to expand its military at the command of a man who is the very antithesis of the rule of law. It claims to seek "value for money" in all its operations but for the military there is no accountability, whether moral or financial.
Time for us to be rid of Ms Collins and Messrs Luxon, Seymour and Peters before they can do even more harm.
Like your comment but I must say the previous Labour govt was clearly heading in the same direction as these fools. Looks like the US has its steel capped boots on to me...
You are right of course Malcolm. My last sentence may have given the impression that the problem can be fixed through a simple change of government. I don't believe that is the case. The Realm of New Zealand pursues colonialist policies because it is a colonialist state. It can do no other. A radical change to the system of governance is needed. That change is rangatiratanga under te whakaminenga.
Collins wants the NZ tax payer to prop up the dysfunctional rules based order, the same one that’s backing the most shameful and heinous genocide in Palestine, so they can maintain hegemony and control over NZ sovereignty. How does this relate to our economic and trade interests. By investing in initiatives to provide cannon fodder for the cause of the U.S and Europe cronies, how will this enhance our society, education, health, environment?
It seems Collins and co. are choosing on our behalf to side with a toxic and decaying imperialism reliant on sanctions, tariffs, and militarism in favour of the emerging east where we currently conduct most of our trade and which promotes multipolar cooperation and cohesion.
About time NZ stepped out of the 5 eyes, and became more humanitarian. Who are they to tell the Cook Islands what they should do? How can our country NZ continue to support the USA/Israel in their terrible display of ethnic cleansing
The Defence force does not make NZ’s foreign policy or choose what wars to fight. The Government does that. Defence’s job is to execute the government’s orders. Our Services have a proud history of doing just that. NZ has got away with spending far less on defence than it should have and the time has now come to equip and staff all three Services properly. They can then do what the government, of any party, requires of them.
Certainly colonialist politicians cannot be absolved of responsibility. They have made astonishingly bad decisions in the past and are on the brink of making even worse decisions now. When governments go to war they consult with their senior military staff who are informed by their military intelligence division as to whether the proposed war is winnable and under what conditions. I would say that New Zealand governments have consistently been given bad advice by the Defence Force. At the very best, the military have gone along with bad political decisions, they have failed to offer sound advice, and they have executed those decisions with a breath-taking degree of incompetence. At the worst, the military themselves have driven the decisions of government.
Up till now New Zealand has been able to walk away from its lost wars relatively unscathed. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Ukraine cost a few lives and a limited amount of money. Go into a completely unjustified war with China and New Zealand as a whole will be made to pay the ultimate price for allowing the colonialist regime to continue along its merry way.
The call for New Zealand to increase its defence spending, which comes directly from President Trump, has nothing to do with the defence of New Zealand. If it did the decision makers would be asking "How could New Zealand ward off or defeat an invading force? What strategy would be followed? What personnel and equipment would be required?" and only lastly "How much would that cost?".
Those questions are not being asked. Instead we are being told to spend 2% of GDP on "defence" without any consideration of strategies or actual resource requirements for a national defence effort. It is what it sounds like: a tax on GDP being imposed by the American empire on all tributary states (which are fast shrinking in number) as a financial contribution towards the defence of the empire.
That tax will almost certainly and quickly rise to 3%. New Zealand will be told it has to spend the tax on "interoperable" defence equipment which would be ineffective for the defence of New Zealand from any external threat. For example the Poseidon aircraft or frigates which could not defend New Zealand from attack, and would not even claim to have that capability. The US is carefully insisting on a kind of defence spending that could not possibly be used to defend New Zealand, and could only be used to defend the US, because for obvious reasons the US does not want any of its allies to have truly independent defence capabilities.
When they are being honest, which is very rarely, New Zealand government ministers admit that defence force spending is not directed towards the defence of New Zealand. It is designed to assist in the defence of the Anglo-American imperial system and as function must follow form, it is good for nothing else.
If New Zealand was to be invaded, either by one of the Five Eyes, or by some other hostile power in the case that New Zealand was to be successfully cut off from the Five Eyes force, then what would happen to us? Exactly what happened to France in 1940. The New Zealand government would quickly determine that "further resistance is futile". The NZDF as the military force would lay down its arms and there would be successful negotiations aimed at maintaining a New Zealand national government under the occupying force. That is how governments and regular military forces generally behave. Governments make pragmatic decisions and the military follow orders. But as in France, resistance, however "futile", would continue among a section of the general population. The guys in your rohe who did not surrender their semi-automatic weapons are your only real line of defence against foreign invaders, and they cost you nothing in taxes.
This is a government of magic numbers. Increase exports by 40% and the economy will recover. (Even the staunchest advocates of market economics can see the fallacy in that one). Double spending on defence and the nation will be secure. That should be easy. Double the wages of all infantry, cooks, drivers, pilots and navy personnel including those who just sank one fifth of the operable naval fleet on a reef off Samoa. Double what you pay for fuel, equipment and supplies. Done. You may say that is silly, but it is not my silliness. It is the silliness of magic numbers.
There are sensible questions to be asked. What is the nature of the threat New Zealand faces? If there is a threat, can that threat be averted by diplomatic means? If not what sort of military response would be necessary and effective? What personnel, equipment and other resources would be required for such a response?
The colonialist regime is not asking these questions because the only sensible answers are not to its liking.
Buying a couple of frigates (the easiest way to double defence spending, and therefore government's default option) will not make New Zealand safe. "Interoperability" will not make us safe. In fact it puts us more at risk.
A policy of non-aggression coupled with a people's army equipped only with light arms would be the best assurance against external threats. However such a policy would challenge the entire logic of colonialism in New Zealand, and therefore it is off the table. Instead either billions of dollars will be wasted on useless military equipment while the health system is in chaos and thousands go hungry or are homeless, or the colonialist regime will be blasted apart in the course of a totally unjust war ostensibly designed to make the world safe for Anglo-American imperialism.
Collin’s said “Old style ‘cold war’ commentators are naive to think that the Pacific is without threat.”. Isn’t it the opposite? It is old style ‘cold war’ commentators who think the Pacific is threatened (by China). They are right about one thing and that’s there’s a threat but the threat comes from the old style ‘cold war’ thinkers who have not yet adapted to the 21st century reality that the US century of world domination is no longer sustainable
"Collins also briefly addressed New Zealand’s disapproval of the Cook Island’s signing of a strategic partnership agreement with China last week, reiterating the Government’s view that it had not been adequately consulted over the deal. “There is enormous (geostrategic) competition in the Pacific region… We’d like to see this agreement, as would the people of the Cook Islands,” she told the conference event."
Will the New Zealand government commit to revealing the details of agreements it is negotiating with other states even while negotiations are under way? Will it commit to revealing the details of all agreements it has already entered into with other states? No, it will not. Therefore it has no right to demand such transparency from the government of the Cook Islands.
Collins went on to say "the Blue Pacific is sparsely populated with an underwater continent with enormous wealth on the seabed". So is that what it is really all about? Is it just like the cause of "Ukrainian freedom" which now seems to be tied up with deposits of rare-earth metals in that country? Does Ukraine have to pay with both blood and treasure for the privilege of being a pawn of Anglo-American imperialism? Are the Cooks being threatened with military intervention because they have the audacity to think that they should decide how to use their own resources?
Collins also argues for more money to be spent on the New Zealand military. More than double the present rate of expenditure if Donald Trump is to be given his way. Yet that is rather odd coming from a government which focuses on effectiveness, efficiency, achieving targets and so on.
Because we have to ask "What has the New Zealand military ever achieved for us?". It has been involved in quite a few wars in the past half century, and has won none of them. It suffered a humiliating loss in Vietnam, failed in Iraq (while fraudulently claiming victory), was trounced in Afghanistan, is staring defeat in the face in Ukraine and a probable drubbing from Yemen. To top it off it managed to sink one fifth of its operational naval fleet on a reef off Samoa. If any other department of state had such a record of complete and unmitigated failure going back fifty years, would it have even more money thrown at it?
All this illustrates the astonishing contradictions of the colonialist regime. It pretends to stand for the rights of nations and peoples, yet tries to bully the government of the Cook Islands, not to mention its own people. It demands transparency from others but offers none of its own. Like a dog in a manger it accuses China of coveting the wealth of the Pacific, yet clearly wants that wealth to go to its own patrons in Washington and Canberra. It calls for peace and the rule of law, but seeks to expand its military at the command of a man who is the very antithesis of the rule of law. It claims to seek "value for money" in all its operations but for the military there is no accountability, whether moral or financial.
Time for us to be rid of Ms Collins and Messrs Luxon, Seymour and Peters before they can do even more harm.
Like your comment but I must say the previous Labour govt was clearly heading in the same direction as these fools. Looks like the US has its steel capped boots on to me...
You are right of course Malcolm. My last sentence may have given the impression that the problem can be fixed through a simple change of government. I don't believe that is the case. The Realm of New Zealand pursues colonialist policies because it is a colonialist state. It can do no other. A radical change to the system of governance is needed. That change is rangatiratanga under te whakaminenga.
Collins wants the NZ tax payer to prop up the dysfunctional rules based order, the same one that’s backing the most shameful and heinous genocide in Palestine, so they can maintain hegemony and control over NZ sovereignty. How does this relate to our economic and trade interests. By investing in initiatives to provide cannon fodder for the cause of the U.S and Europe cronies, how will this enhance our society, education, health, environment?
It seems Collins and co. are choosing on our behalf to side with a toxic and decaying imperialism reliant on sanctions, tariffs, and militarism in favour of the emerging east where we currently conduct most of our trade and which promotes multipolar cooperation and cohesion.
No tariffs levied against us….yet. Just expected to prop up the military industrial complex.
About time NZ stepped out of the 5 eyes, and became more humanitarian. Who are they to tell the Cook Islands what they should do? How can our country NZ continue to support the USA/Israel in their terrible display of ethnic cleansing
The Defence force does not make NZ’s foreign policy or choose what wars to fight. The Government does that. Defence’s job is to execute the government’s orders. Our Services have a proud history of doing just that. NZ has got away with spending far less on defence than it should have and the time has now come to equip and staff all three Services properly. They can then do what the government, of any party, requires of them.
Certainly colonialist politicians cannot be absolved of responsibility. They have made astonishingly bad decisions in the past and are on the brink of making even worse decisions now. When governments go to war they consult with their senior military staff who are informed by their military intelligence division as to whether the proposed war is winnable and under what conditions. I would say that New Zealand governments have consistently been given bad advice by the Defence Force. At the very best, the military have gone along with bad political decisions, they have failed to offer sound advice, and they have executed those decisions with a breath-taking degree of incompetence. At the worst, the military themselves have driven the decisions of government.
Up till now New Zealand has been able to walk away from its lost wars relatively unscathed. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Ukraine cost a few lives and a limited amount of money. Go into a completely unjustified war with China and New Zealand as a whole will be made to pay the ultimate price for allowing the colonialist regime to continue along its merry way.
The call for New Zealand to increase its defence spending, which comes directly from President Trump, has nothing to do with the defence of New Zealand. If it did the decision makers would be asking "How could New Zealand ward off or defeat an invading force? What strategy would be followed? What personnel and equipment would be required?" and only lastly "How much would that cost?".
Those questions are not being asked. Instead we are being told to spend 2% of GDP on "defence" without any consideration of strategies or actual resource requirements for a national defence effort. It is what it sounds like: a tax on GDP being imposed by the American empire on all tributary states (which are fast shrinking in number) as a financial contribution towards the defence of the empire.
That tax will almost certainly and quickly rise to 3%. New Zealand will be told it has to spend the tax on "interoperable" defence equipment which would be ineffective for the defence of New Zealand from any external threat. For example the Poseidon aircraft or frigates which could not defend New Zealand from attack, and would not even claim to have that capability. The US is carefully insisting on a kind of defence spending that could not possibly be used to defend New Zealand, and could only be used to defend the US, because for obvious reasons the US does not want any of its allies to have truly independent defence capabilities.
When they are being honest, which is very rarely, New Zealand government ministers admit that defence force spending is not directed towards the defence of New Zealand. It is designed to assist in the defence of the Anglo-American imperial system and as function must follow form, it is good for nothing else.
If New Zealand was to be invaded, either by one of the Five Eyes, or by some other hostile power in the case that New Zealand was to be successfully cut off from the Five Eyes force, then what would happen to us? Exactly what happened to France in 1940. The New Zealand government would quickly determine that "further resistance is futile". The NZDF as the military force would lay down its arms and there would be successful negotiations aimed at maintaining a New Zealand national government under the occupying force. That is how governments and regular military forces generally behave. Governments make pragmatic decisions and the military follow orders. But as in France, resistance, however "futile", would continue among a section of the general population. The guys in your rohe who did not surrender their semi-automatic weapons are your only real line of defence against foreign invaders, and they cost you nothing in taxes.
This is a government of magic numbers. Increase exports by 40% and the economy will recover. (Even the staunchest advocates of market economics can see the fallacy in that one). Double spending on defence and the nation will be secure. That should be easy. Double the wages of all infantry, cooks, drivers, pilots and navy personnel including those who just sank one fifth of the operable naval fleet on a reef off Samoa. Double what you pay for fuel, equipment and supplies. Done. You may say that is silly, but it is not my silliness. It is the silliness of magic numbers.
There are sensible questions to be asked. What is the nature of the threat New Zealand faces? If there is a threat, can that threat be averted by diplomatic means? If not what sort of military response would be necessary and effective? What personnel, equipment and other resources would be required for such a response?
The colonialist regime is not asking these questions because the only sensible answers are not to its liking.
Buying a couple of frigates (the easiest way to double defence spending, and therefore government's default option) will not make New Zealand safe. "Interoperability" will not make us safe. In fact it puts us more at risk.
A policy of non-aggression coupled with a people's army equipped only with light arms would be the best assurance against external threats. However such a policy would challenge the entire logic of colonialism in New Zealand, and therefore it is off the table. Instead either billions of dollars will be wasted on useless military equipment while the health system is in chaos and thousands go hungry or are homeless, or the colonialist regime will be blasted apart in the course of a totally unjust war ostensibly designed to make the world safe for Anglo-American imperialism.