Opening Address at NZDF Symposium, Trentham

Introduction:
·CDF, thank you for those kind words and for inviting me to open the NZDF’s major professional symposium for 2002.

·While the NZDF has had tri-service professional symposiums in the past, I am particularly pleased to note that this is the first truly joint symposium.

·The government and the defence force have clearly identified that New Zealand must tackle all important defence issues through a joint approach.

·The events of the 11th September last year concentrated the minds of many people across New Zealand, and the world, on matters that had previously been considered virtually unthinkable.

·Terms such as ‘Asymmetric Warfare’, which were once completely unknown to the general public, are now occasionally referred to in media reports.

·As the Minister ultimately responsible to the New Zealand people for your professional development and ongoing activities, I know that the NZDF has long maintained the necessary professional interest in such matters - as do your compatriot defence forces overseas.

·I am also heartened to note that the program of this professional symposium looks at the theme of asymmetric warfare from a holistic national viewpoint - and one that is integrated into the wider ramifications such as international law, and the broader international responses involved.

·I would particularly like to thank our guest speakers from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States for being here. We appreciate their willingness to share their professional perspectives on the common issues our defence forces, and indeed our countries, face.

·I know you all hold important and busy positions in your own countries. We are thankful for the considerable effort you have made to come all the way to Wellington for this symposium.

Nurturing Professionalism
·This type of symposium is vital to the continued professional development of the NZDF in the short to medium term, and is important to the defence of New Zealand and its interests in the long term.

·Unless the NZDF can keep abreast of contemporary international thinking, its core professionalism will undoubtedly wither away. Once gone, much time, effort and resources would be required to resurrect the same level of capability and professional capability.

·Time spent on technical and intellectual activities, such as this internal professional symposium, are just as essential to the effective defence of New Zealand, as the more publicly visible aspects of the defence force.

·Last year there were some internal defence issues, which came to be played out in very public forums. This led to a close examination of what can be considered appropriate comment and debate, and what might cross the boundary into an area with major constitutional consequences.

·This afternoon, CDF will be releasing a report into some of these issues, and the responses he has taken.

·I will not comment in any detail ahead of that announcement. Nevertheless, as Minister, I want to make it clear that I fully support the absolute requirement for appropriate in-house professional debate within the NZDF.

·The CDF and Service Chiefs could not furnish the best possible objective and professional advice to the Government unless such advice is grounded, tested and reflected upon in comprehensive, structured and honest internal professional debate.

Whole-of-Government Approach
·I'd like to now move on to the theme of your symposium. Since last September’s terrorist attacks, there has been an increased global recognition of the threat posed by trans-national terrorist alliances.

·Our prompt political and military support to the US-led coalition force in Afghanistan demonstrated New Zealand’s recognition that such terrorist alliances pose a significant threat to the rule of law and common decency.

·Our national response also demonstrated our long-standing view that peoples the world over, committed to just dealings between nations, must form a common front to protect, enforce and promote civilised international behaviour.

·This common approach requires a close examination of the principles of Asymmetric Warfare.

·I certainly do not profess to be an expert in this area. It is not my role to be, and you will be hearing from people with in-depth knowledge during this seminar.

·But I am advised that Professor Steven Metz and Colonel Douglas Johnson, from the US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute, have proposed a comprehensive recent definition of asymmetry.

·They argue that:
oAsymmetry is acting, organising, and thinking differently than opponents in order to maximise one’s own advantages, to exploit an opponent’s weaknesses, attain the initiative, or gain greater freedom of action.

oAsymmetry can be political-strategic, military-strategic, operational, or a combination of these.

oAsymmetry can detail different methods, technologies, values, organisations, time perspectives or some combination of these. It can be short-term or long-term. It can be deliberate or by default. It can be discrete or pursued in conjunction with symmetric approaches. It can have both psychological and physical dimensions.

·From my perspective as Minister, this definition of asymmetric warfare illustrates why a whole-of-government response, within a broader international approach, is clearly required.

·Open and democratic societies necessarily have many vulnerabilities that can be exploited by terrorists.

·However, we should not be transfixed by our apparent vulnerabilities. It can be argued that too much of the discussion concerning the current threat from trans-national terrorism has concentrated on the terrorist tools involved.

·This especially concerns the physical threats to our security from biological, chemical, radiological and, potentially, even forms of nuclear weapons.
·But these terrorist threats, terrifying though they are, are simply the means by which terrorist groups and alliances execute their asymmetric strategies.

·I am therefore encouraged by the pitch of the program of this professional symposium – which is aimed fairly and squarely at the strategic nature of the problem posed by trans-national terrorist alliances.

·Many defence writers believe that the conventional battlefields of the future are more likely to be urban centres, rather than the predominantly rural settings of previous New Zealand overseas campaigns in the Western Desert, Southern Europe and South East Asia.

·In an increasingly urbanised world, the political issues of the day – and accordingly the focus of conflict – will most often be fought out in the cities. This is especially so for the increasingly more crowded, often deprived, urban sprawls in developing countries.

·It is in these areas that many of the contemporary social and political tensions are generated, that help breed the violence that can threaten national and international peace and security.

·This is not the time to explore in any depth the underlying causes of those problems – but they are many and they are complex. Indeed, grappling with those underlying social, economic, geo-political and religious factors will, in my view, be one of humanities great challenges in this new century.

·For you, the focus is necessarily the consequences and threats posed by these great issues. It is fair to say that the line is becoming increasing blurred between conventional and unconventional warfare, and the battlefields where such wars are, and will be fought.

·As the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington showed, cities are also acutely vulnerable to asymmetric attack.

Relevance to New Zealand
·From the perspective of small countries such as New Zealand, it is also important to note the two forms of strategic asymmetry - positive and negative.

·Positive asymmetry – what we can do to create an advantage – obviously confronts small countries with significant technological, resourcing and personnel issues.

·We therefore need to maximise those positive asymmetries we too often take for granted, such as the New Zealand Defence Force's - and indeed the whole country’s - comparatively high education and training standards.

·We also need to direct appropriate investment in military capability towards those aspects where we can build on natural advantages. One example is further developing our intelligence gathering capability.

·On the other hand, negative asymmetry - the differences that an opponent will use to target our weaknesses - require us first to identify and understand such weaknesses.
·In part, this can only be done if in-house symposiums like this one are conducted in an atmosphere that encourages honest, intellectual and professional debate.

·The NZDF’s recent peacekeeping experiences in Bosnia, East Timor and elsewhere have demonstrated some related lessons.

·We have sent defence personnel to some of the most dysfunctional, strive-torn regions of the world – the very communities that can be prime recruiting grounds for terrorist groups.

·And our personnel have time and time again demonstrated a particular ability to relate to local people, to win trust and forge friendships, and to contribute in no small way to ongoing peace and security.

Conclusion
·In conclusion, the Government recognises the importance to New Zealand of the theme of this symposium.

·We also acknowledge the defence force’s continual need to nurture professional development through intellectual debate and interaction with the latest military and wider thinking internationally.

·Symposiums of this nature are absolutely vital to the ongoing professional health of the NZDF and its essential joint focus.

·Thank you again to CDF for inviting me to open this symposium. I hope your discussions go well.

·Thank you again also to our overseas guests for sharing your professional knowledge and viewpoints with this forum.

·I do have other commitments back in Wellington, but I look forward to hearing the first of today's presentations, by Dr Cathy Downes from Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force. Thank you.