While many progressives like to postulate that the USA's support for Israel is based on various reasons of guilt, IAPAC bribes, a common history of settler colonial states, anti-Arab racism, the US' wish to keep an armed ally in the Middle East because of oil, etc, or other fantasies, I'd suggest a large reason is that only one side in the Israel v others turmoil is a functioning democracy with human rights, the rule of law not of dictators or monarchs, and it doesn't promise to drive the other nations' population into the sea and soak their land in blood.
When TSHTF you certainly get to see who your friends are; people you thought were your friends betray you, others unexpectedly put their hands up. Betrayal changes the future and the past.
The Arab nations now on the side of Israel and the US! Who would have thought? Even Uganda, of all places.
“The head of Uganda’s military suggests that his country will join the Iran war if Israel is at risk of defeat.
“We want the war in the Middle East to end now. The world is tired of it. But any talk of destroying or defeating Israel will bring us into the war. On the side of Israel!” Muhoozi Kainerugaba tweets.
Last month, Kainerugaba announced that Uganda would erect a statue of Yoni Netanyahu, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother, who was killed leading an elite IDF force in the 1976 rescue of hostages from Entebbe.”
There are two issues here. The first is New Zealand's independent foreign policy and the second is the configuration of New Zealand's defence force.
Let's deal with second issue one first, since that is easy to answer. Everything New Zealand buys for the NZDF is to the NATO standard, as is the case with Japan, South Korea and Singapore. No matter how far we step outside a tight orbit with the US, the NZDF will have no difficulty keeping the NZDF operational to the ATO standard. There are many dozens of countries who can support a defence force conforming to NATO standards. In any event, Australia is our only formal ally. It really is inconceivable that New Zealand would not have a deference force fully interoperable with that of Australia.
The issue of New Zealand's independent foreign policy is more interesting. The current government, especially Winston Peters, is instinctively supportive of the US. But the Iran war has shown the limits of that. The New Zealand government is increasingly becoming more exasperated with this war. The Left of New Zealand is completely over a close partnership with the US, at least if the Trumpists are in control.
So where does this leave New zealand?
I think there will be a much greater recourse to the virtues of an independent foreign policy, in the way that Helen Clark envisaged it. I appreciate that might exasperate some of the more rightist commenters here, but I think that Clark, just as she did when she was the PM, has pretty accurately read the national mood on this one.
More than any other New Zealand Prime Minister since WW2, Helen Clark is fully schooled on the theories and practise of foreign policy and the degrees of freedom that New Zealand has. She was the principal political author of New Zealand's nuclear free policy. She knew that would take New Zealand out of a formal alliance with the US, but that New Zealand would still remain within the broader western framework.
It is worth recalling what Helen Clark did over Iraq. Clark did not want to follow the US into a war that did not have UN authorisation and that could not be regarded as a war of self defence. That was in contrast to her being one of the first western leaders to commit New Zealand troops (SAS) to the war in Afghanistan. However, she knew she could not just say "no" to the US over Iraq. So she committed a frigate and an Orion to the Gulf for patrol duties, a C130 to Afghanistan, a renewed deployment of the SAS to Afghanistan and an Engineer Squadron to Iraq once initial offensive operations had ceased.
In February 2003, after all these deployments had been announced, but before the Iraq war had started, I asked the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs whether New Zealand had struck a deal with the US, as a quid pro quo for not participating in the actual invasion.. He said, "well what would be wrong with that". I conceded that it was a sensible approach.
Will the current government become a bit more far sighted on foreign policy?
I think that that is likely. Trump's war has come as real shock to the broader western alliance. Most western nations now know that can't readily trust or follow the US. Therefore they have no choice but to forge a more independent path. That applies to New Zealand with greater force than for nations that are formally bound in an alliance relationship with the US.
Both defence and foreign policy issues are tightly intertwined for inconsequential NZ.
Your point re NATO weaponry compatibility is fair but particularly the Ukraine war and quite possibly Iran too, has shown that much of NATO's traditional hardware is now obsolete. Maybe as our host points out we can and maybe even afford to develop effective drone technology ourselves. How our complete reliance on US intelligence and re cyber warfare would curtail any significant military independence. Our three biggest trading partners are China, Australia and the US. I suspect you ae right that most kiwis are comfortable with the Helen Clark walk the line approach although her instinctive clinging to the UN is pointlessly pathetic in todays world. Equally assuming the US will come to our aid or to the broader western alliance, if its not in her interest, is naive. I suspect this approach will survive Trump. Hopefully Winston Peters can charm hs way through the eye of the needle but this will be an increasingly difficult task for any NZ government. It would get very ugly if the current energy crisis is followed by a food security one.
I wasn't assuming that the US would come to our aid or that of the broader western alliance, but I am of the view the US will still support its most core allies (which no longer includes Europe). If this is the future US approach, NATO will collapse. Europe would have to fully defend itself, something they already seem to be envisaging. Given that France and the UK can provide a European deterrent, Europe would survive the end of NATO.
However, I am of the view that the one state the US will always support is Australia. The reason being that the defence of Australia is tantamount to the defence of the US. If the US did not defend Australia, the US would cease to be a Pacific power. Guam would be gone and Hawaii would be the front line. I appreciate that this very much stems from a WW2 view of Pacific strategy. These days it is hard to envisage a major Pacific war being anything other than a nuclear war, at which rationality is a moot point. Nevertheless the day to day credibility of the US being a Pacific power largely rests on the US being committed to the defence of Australia.
I am not convinced Winston can thread the needle of New Zealand's independent foreign policy. He seemingly is too wedded to a traditional view of the world, and is probably still appalled at Helen Clark's nuclear free policy. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the approach envisaged by our host will come from the upcoming political generation, whether they be Left or Right.
I would like to think the upcoming generation can strategise their way through this conundrum but like your view of the foreign minister's conservative charm approach I don't like their chances. Perhaps they can develop next generation weapony. Your perspective on the US/Australia relationship makes sense and accordingly we better hang onto five eyes for grim death. Ultimately this will see a further erosion of living standards as we lose our Chinese markets. NZ influencing PRC and Taiwanese integration is a pipe dream.
Israel has an exaggerated influence partly because of the Jewish role in US commerce but particularly because it has nuclear weapons (hence the Iranian obsession with them).
"We have no money, therefore we must think." (Rutherford). New Zealand has always been at its finest when that motto has been taken to heart.
While many progressives like to postulate that the USA's support for Israel is based on various reasons of guilt, IAPAC bribes, a common history of settler colonial states, anti-Arab racism, the US' wish to keep an armed ally in the Middle East because of oil, etc, or other fantasies, I'd suggest a large reason is that only one side in the Israel v others turmoil is a functioning democracy with human rights, the rule of law not of dictators or monarchs, and it doesn't promise to drive the other nations' population into the sea and soak their land in blood.
We are now in the age of spheres of influence, not rules based order.
That means we have to choose and stick to a side.
Either economic or democratic considerations can be dominant , not both
Both hegemons will determine our foreign policy.
When TSHTF you certainly get to see who your friends are; people you thought were your friends betray you, others unexpectedly put their hands up. Betrayal changes the future and the past.
The Arab nations now on the side of Israel and the US! Who would have thought? Even Uganda, of all places.
“The head of Uganda’s military suggests that his country will join the Iran war if Israel is at risk of defeat.
“We want the war in the Middle East to end now. The world is tired of it. But any talk of destroying or defeating Israel will bring us into the war. On the side of Israel!” Muhoozi Kainerugaba tweets.
Last month, Kainerugaba announced that Uganda would erect a statue of Yoni Netanyahu, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother, who was killed leading an elite IDF force in the 1976 rescue of hostages from Entebbe.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-march-25-2026/
Mmm. Like. I still think ANZAC UNITY is a solution despite Australia being part of 5 eyes
There are two issues here. The first is New Zealand's independent foreign policy and the second is the configuration of New Zealand's defence force.
Let's deal with second issue one first, since that is easy to answer. Everything New Zealand buys for the NZDF is to the NATO standard, as is the case with Japan, South Korea and Singapore. No matter how far we step outside a tight orbit with the US, the NZDF will have no difficulty keeping the NZDF operational to the ATO standard. There are many dozens of countries who can support a defence force conforming to NATO standards. In any event, Australia is our only formal ally. It really is inconceivable that New Zealand would not have a deference force fully interoperable with that of Australia.
The issue of New Zealand's independent foreign policy is more interesting. The current government, especially Winston Peters, is instinctively supportive of the US. But the Iran war has shown the limits of that. The New Zealand government is increasingly becoming more exasperated with this war. The Left of New Zealand is completely over a close partnership with the US, at least if the Trumpists are in control.
So where does this leave New zealand?
I think there will be a much greater recourse to the virtues of an independent foreign policy, in the way that Helen Clark envisaged it. I appreciate that might exasperate some of the more rightist commenters here, but I think that Clark, just as she did when she was the PM, has pretty accurately read the national mood on this one.
More than any other New Zealand Prime Minister since WW2, Helen Clark is fully schooled on the theories and practise of foreign policy and the degrees of freedom that New Zealand has. She was the principal political author of New Zealand's nuclear free policy. She knew that would take New Zealand out of a formal alliance with the US, but that New Zealand would still remain within the broader western framework.
It is worth recalling what Helen Clark did over Iraq. Clark did not want to follow the US into a war that did not have UN authorisation and that could not be regarded as a war of self defence. That was in contrast to her being one of the first western leaders to commit New Zealand troops (SAS) to the war in Afghanistan. However, she knew she could not just say "no" to the US over Iraq. So she committed a frigate and an Orion to the Gulf for patrol duties, a C130 to Afghanistan, a renewed deployment of the SAS to Afghanistan and an Engineer Squadron to Iraq once initial offensive operations had ceased.
In February 2003, after all these deployments had been announced, but before the Iraq war had started, I asked the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs whether New Zealand had struck a deal with the US, as a quid pro quo for not participating in the actual invasion.. He said, "well what would be wrong with that". I conceded that it was a sensible approach.
Will the current government become a bit more far sighted on foreign policy?
I think that that is likely. Trump's war has come as real shock to the broader western alliance. Most western nations now know that can't readily trust or follow the US. Therefore they have no choice but to forge a more independent path. That applies to New Zealand with greater force than for nations that are formally bound in an alliance relationship with the US.
Both defence and foreign policy issues are tightly intertwined for inconsequential NZ.
Your point re NATO weaponry compatibility is fair but particularly the Ukraine war and quite possibly Iran too, has shown that much of NATO's traditional hardware is now obsolete. Maybe as our host points out we can and maybe even afford to develop effective drone technology ourselves. How our complete reliance on US intelligence and re cyber warfare would curtail any significant military independence. Our three biggest trading partners are China, Australia and the US. I suspect you ae right that most kiwis are comfortable with the Helen Clark walk the line approach although her instinctive clinging to the UN is pointlessly pathetic in todays world. Equally assuming the US will come to our aid or to the broader western alliance, if its not in her interest, is naive. I suspect this approach will survive Trump. Hopefully Winston Peters can charm hs way through the eye of the needle but this will be an increasingly difficult task for any NZ government. It would get very ugly if the current energy crisis is followed by a food security one.
I wasn't assuming that the US would come to our aid or that of the broader western alliance, but I am of the view the US will still support its most core allies (which no longer includes Europe). If this is the future US approach, NATO will collapse. Europe would have to fully defend itself, something they already seem to be envisaging. Given that France and the UK can provide a European deterrent, Europe would survive the end of NATO.
However, I am of the view that the one state the US will always support is Australia. The reason being that the defence of Australia is tantamount to the defence of the US. If the US did not defend Australia, the US would cease to be a Pacific power. Guam would be gone and Hawaii would be the front line. I appreciate that this very much stems from a WW2 view of Pacific strategy. These days it is hard to envisage a major Pacific war being anything other than a nuclear war, at which rationality is a moot point. Nevertheless the day to day credibility of the US being a Pacific power largely rests on the US being committed to the defence of Australia.
I am not convinced Winston can thread the needle of New Zealand's independent foreign policy. He seemingly is too wedded to a traditional view of the world, and is probably still appalled at Helen Clark's nuclear free policy. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the approach envisaged by our host will come from the upcoming political generation, whether they be Left or Right.
I would like to think the upcoming generation can strategise their way through this conundrum but like your view of the foreign minister's conservative charm approach I don't like their chances. Perhaps they can develop next generation weapony. Your perspective on the US/Australia relationship makes sense and accordingly we better hang onto five eyes for grim death. Ultimately this will see a further erosion of living standards as we lose our Chinese markets. NZ influencing PRC and Taiwanese integration is a pipe dream.
Israel has an exaggerated influence partly because of the Jewish role in US commerce but particularly because it has nuclear weapons (hence the Iranian obsession with them).