The Militant (logo)  
Vol.63/No.34       October 4, 1999  
 
 
Washington resumes joint military exercises with New Zealand gov't.  
 
 
BY MICHAEL TUCKER 
AUCKLAND, New Zealand — Amidst the build up to the imperialist intervention in East Timor, U.S. president William Clinton announced in Christchurch September 15 that Washington would resume joint military exercises with Wellington on a "case by case" basis. Clinton made the announcement during a week-long state visit to New Zealand following the September 10–13 summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Auckland.

The U.S. government up to now has excluded Wellington from participation in its ANZUS military pact with Australia and New Zealand, and barred it from joint military exercises with U.S. forces. Washington took these steps after the New Zealand government banned visits by nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered warships in the mid 1980s. Legislation adopted by parliament in 1987 banning the visits remains in force.

Since that time, Canberra has conducted military training with the U.S. and New Zealand separately. New Zealand's armed forces are closely integrated with those of Australia. Despite the rift, Wellington has continued to commit personnel to U.S.-led military interventions from the Gulf War, to Somalia, to Bosnia.

Clinton's announcement was viewed by ruling circles here as a breakthrough in restoring Wellington's military relations with Washington. The decision opened the way for U.S., Australian, and New Zealand forces to begin joint exercises with troops from Southeast Asian countries in preparation for the East Timor occupation.

New Zealand's prime minister Jennifer Shipley announced September 16 that her government was dispatching an initial force of 420 soldiers and 265 naval and air force personnel to join the Australian-led intervention force in East Timor. The troop commitment is expected to grow to full battalion size of more than 700. Two New Zealand warships have already been sent.

The last time the New Zealand government dispatched a battalion-strength force overseas was to Malaysia and Singapore in the 1950s and 60s. Together with British and Australian forces, they backed the Malaysian regime in quelling resistance by workers and peasants and in its conflict with the Sukarno government in Indonesia. This included fighting against Indonesian forces on the island of Borneo (Kalimantan) in the mid 1960s.

A battalion-strength force was also sent to participate in the imperialist intervention in Korea in the early 1950s. New Zealand forces sent to support Washington in Vietnam in the 1960s peaked at 543.

Announcing the troop commitment, Shipley warned of the need to expect casualties, a warning that was repeated in a bold front-page headline the next day by the New Zealand Herald. "We are talking about war," proclaimed the Herald in an editorial. "The Australians and their allies could be fighting for a very long time to secure East Timor. New Zealanders should be alongside them, properly equipped and prepared, with the country united behind them. And there's no time to waste."

Shipley called a special sitting of the New Zealand parliament September 17 where the government gained the united backing of all parties for the imperialist intervention. Opposition politicians of the left-wing Alliance and Green parties had been leading calls for intervention in East Timor over the previous weeks.

"Now in our region…we have our own Kosovo," Shipley proclaimed in her address to parliament. Rightist New Zealand First politician Ron Mark used the occasion to agitate for building a stronger military, a call that was echoed by the ruling National Party's minister of defense, Max Bradford.

An editorial in the New Zealand Herald September 20 also took up this theme. "Predictably, we find the chickens – or rather doves – coming home to roost. For the best part of 20 years, we have neglected the Armed Forces," it said, expressing the hope that this would now be reversed.

Michael Tucker is a member of the Service & Food Workers Union in Auckland.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home