New Zealand's support of the US

A few days ago I posted an article from the New Zealand Press in which the NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark was quoted as saying NZ was withdrawing from the ANZUS pact and wouldn't support the US in its time of need. This engendered quite a response, mainly from outraged Americans.

However, I've also heard from Kiwis who said that the newspaper report wasn't accurate, the PM doesn't speak for them, and that the NZ people heartily support the US. Most of the Kiwis were polite in their messages :-), too.

Now that things have cooled down a bit I'd like to thank everyone from NZ who replied for their thoughts. We welcome your support, both moral and material. However, I hope you can soon put your house in order. Your PM is an international embarrassment to you.

Capt Phoenix: You've addressed this e-mail to me in error I think. Nevertheless I will respond. New Zealand's point was that we did not/do not want to be defended by nuclear weapons and went nuclear free in an effort to encourage larger states to reverse the nuclear arms build up that was occuring at the time. We did not shirk our defense responsibilites, as you claim: as New Zealand's defense spending increased quite markedly after we were booted out of ANZUS by the US. The US did not respect a decision made by a democratic country through a democratic process. In response to New Zealand's nuclear free ships policy, the CIA attempted to place the Labor Government in a position of corruption (The Maori Loans Scandal), hoping that the Governor General of the country would remove the government from power. It failed. (However, the CIA was successful in using this strategy to remove the Whitlam government from power in Australia in the early 1970s; the government had banned nuclear powered ships from berthing at Australian harbors.) Despite this horrendous act by the US, the NZ government of the time and subsequent governments have tried to maintain friendly relations with the US. It is US policies such as these that make non Americans think that the US only really respects foreign democracies as long as those their decisions align with US interests. New Zealand has never been a isolationist country as you claim; it has always made a contribution to world affairs and is one of only two countries to fight with America in all of the wars and conflicts of the last century. New Zealand's government is not socialist, as the term is used in the conventional sense. Yes, aspects of its social policies are state welfarist (like America's), but its economic policy of the last 17 years has been much more conversative (i.e., neo-classical monetarist) than America's, even Reagan's. We have the lowest and fewest tariffs in the world, no subsidies of agriculture or private industry, a post office that is run on a profit and loss basis, the privatisation of entitlements and the wholesale privatisation of most state owned assets. Indeed, as I stated earlier, New Gingrich's Contract With America was modelled on New Zealand's economic reforms. He said so.

Aye - you're a bit of a voice of reason here at the moment, but I can't quite agree with your views on the anti-nuclear side of things. Your comment that you live in one of the most targeted cities in the world adds a bit of a chilling perspective for sure.

It is true however that New Zealand was one of the nations up for the 'most thoroughly obliterated' award.

You suggest it would have been an act of courage to be prepared to ride out the nuclear firestorm. In near all cultures, it is considered a fine thing to give your individual life for your country - for the defence of its existence, culture and ideals. And of course in New Zealand many of our ancestors have made that sacrifice. It would be an act of the upmost stupidity to throw away their sacrifice in blind obedience to another county. Where as something called America would be preserved - in it's overseas military forces, in its extensive (and expensive) military bunkers, and in its interior - for us the few surviving New Zealanders would be people without a land, our culture smashed then drowned in the wider world. In the aftermath, any gratitude from America for our loss would have been empty, pointless - who would be left to thank?

The risk of nuclear war was seemingly not that great, but it was certainly a damn site more than hypothetical. We didn't really offer much to America in terms of nuclear war - a few extra ports in an out of the way corner of the Pacific. True, it's a sad thing when someone opts out of a condition on a treaty, but ANZUS was signed fifty years ago - back in the times when there were 'atoms for peace' and multiple re-entry warheads did not exist. From a conventional warfare point of view, we would have been happy to remain a part of ANZUS - which we quietly have as far as intelligence gathering goes. From the 'mutually assured destruction' point of view, ANZUS grew into being a very bad marriage - I know we promised ports, but not many people would stand by a vow of 'till death do us part' if that means being a tortured and dismembered body, in a forgotten and unmarked grave. And that for what? I don’t think American ships ever came here on vital business, and the Russians made it quite clear no US warships could be allowed to hide here. At best we would have absorbed a few warheads meant for someone else. Bloody hell - not much in it for us! :)

Duh Oyez, You know we're upside down at the bottom of the world. The most right winged government that NZ has ever had was a left winged Government. The current Aussie government is a Liberal one but being liberal in Australia is being conservative. NZs most right winged governement got us booted out of ANUS and yet, it had a finance minister (i.e., Roger Douglas)who's right winged policies ultimately got him a knighthood and to the top of the 'Business Round Table'. Helen Clark was minister of health in that government and was responsible for privatising our health system! As for NZrs fleeing the country, these are the young and its part and parcel of Australasian culture to head overseas on the big OE (Overseas Experience). That's why, despite our small size, we are the worlds greatest travellers and can be found in every corner of the globe. That so many Kiwi's head to Aussie is because there is no visa restriction and Australia's economy is just 'slightly' better than ours, but not much better! As for the hard workers paying out their money to support social welfare, DRIVEL. We are one of the most deregulated countries in the world and our taxes are low - VERY LOW. The NZ economy suffers because of big players like the USA who restrict our products through every means possible and then claim to be proponents of free trade (hypocrites as usual). If there were no restrictions placed upon our products, we would be one of the wealthiest nations in the world as we were in the 1950s. Ironically, we opened our economy up to the rest of the world and have suffered ever since. We played by the rules (and still do) but the rest of the world have not! In conclusion, you are confusing economics with politics. There has been a slight restructuring of the tax rate since Clark took office and also our employment contracts act. However, in general, her governments economic policies are no different to the previous. Oyez, there are only two communist states left in the world. If you are talking economics, these are 'command economies' and are failing dismally as they always have. If you are talking politics, you are talking about an elite few having total control. If you are talking spirituality, you are talking no religious freedom whatsoever. If you are talking socialism, then I suggest you have a good look at some of the European countries such as France and Sweeden. A comparison of NZ with these countries would make us look like the leaders of the free market world - which incidently we are because we have absolutely no barriers to trade! We are a very small economy and small economies must have some government intervention in order to survive. Singapore is a case in point! Our market has not proven big enough to have lots of competitors. There are just 3.8 million people in NZ and only about 1.5 million people work. The rest are either elderly, students, or children. You can't run a pure market economy in a country of NZs size. WE HAVE PROVED IT DOESN'T WORK. That the NZ government intervenes, albeit very slightly, does not make it socialist. And it certainly does not make it communist (LOL). It does makes it sensible though.

Damian5: As you constantly refer to sex with sheep, I can only assume that either you're into it yourself or, more likely, you can only revert to vulgarity because you have nothing constructive to say. By the way, who do you think invented sheep jokes? Kiwis, of course. Any tawdry crap that you can say about humans and sheep has already been said by us. More to the point, you've failed to respond to my point that in the US during World War II the coal miners and steel workers went on strike; and therefore, according to your logic, the US must be a pathetic, communist state. I can only conclude that you are hopelessly out of your depth and should redraw from the argument.

You err. You started the vulgarity, name calling, and insults in earlier responses to anyone who criticized your viewpoint. I merely responded to it in kind. By the way, the union to which you refer in New Zealand was the Watersider's Union, which was the most active and ultimately most destructive union in the country. Most New Zealanders, including others unionists I suspect, probably had a low view of them. They periodically brought the farming industry to its knees. Like any modern democracy, New Zealand has strong divisions between capital and labor, business and unions. FDR a great man. Even Newt Gingrich thinks that FDR was the greatest president of the last century. That's good enough for to me.

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.