Defensive Moves

The Government Has Betrayed Its Own People

So it's now official. We have been told officially that New Zealand defenceless. The 2007/2008 Defence Force Annual Report has just been released. It admits that the New Zealand navy is finding it difficult to sail; the air force is finding it difficult to fly; and the army is unable to fight. Problems with inadequate personnel, equipment and capability are cited.

We do not expect that this damning news will cause much consternation within Wellington. Our nation's defence doctrine has for decades been “others”: that is, we look to and rely upon other nations to defend us (Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom). We don't have formal alliances to that effect—we just hope that it will be so. It is hard to conceive greater folly or more naive stupidity.

If a civil government has core functions then protecting the life and property of its citizens has to be right at the very top of its God-given responsibilities. It is a fundamental duty of government to defend its citizens from armed aggression—and the only way that can be done is by maintaining an adequate defence. Successive governments in this country have defalcated and failed in this most important of obligations.

If the City of Unbelief starts to become concerned at this dereliction of duty, its remedy is likely to be the entering into formal alliances with Australia and the United States as soon as it can. However, this response is fundamentally wrong. Effectively it is a ceding of our independence and sovereignty to another. A treaty obligates us to do the bidding of another government—even to the point of shedding blood.

The City of God has a very different approach. Firstly, it acknowledges that the government has a God-given duty to maintain the defence of its people and protect them from any who would destroy life or property. Secondly, it insists that if we are to have our own civil government, it is a responsibility that we must bear ourselves. We do not look to Australia, for example, to apprehend and punish our murderers or those amongst us who steal. If we did, then we would cease to be an independent nation, and would become the next Australian state.

To be a self-governing nation means that we take responsibility to administer justice in truth and equity. Defence is no exception. To be self-governing means that our government has a duty to defend. Jerusalem, then, is a warrior city, but for defensive purposes only.

The defence doctrine of Jerusalem is not that of Athens. Our doctrine is not “others” in any sense. In Jerusalem, the defence policy of the civil government is armed neutrality. Let us explore this a bit further.

Firstly, the concept of neutrality. The declaration which Jerusalem would make to the whole world is that its government would align with no other government; it would enter into no treaty obligations; it would not partake in any other nation's or government's wars or conflicts.

Secondly, Jerusalem would be an armed camp. All citizens (male and female) would have to serve in the national militia; all would have to engage in a certain level of armed training every year; every home would have to keep at least one assault rifle for every militia member in the household; the professional standing army and air force would be large and extremely well-equipped; the naval force would be focused only on the defence of our coastline.

A nation which has followed this basic Christian defence model for centuries now is Switzerland. When Switzerland buys a squadron of interceptor fighters, it always buys three: one for action; two for parts and replacement. Its military equipment is state of the art. Everyone is trained to use an assault rifle—and there is one in every home. While not generally known, Switzerland is an armed camp. Its war readiness is maintained at the highest levels.

This, we believe, is a fundamentally Christian model of defence which the City of Belief would employ. This doctrine does not promise people that the City would never be attacked, nor that if attacked, victory would be assured. What is does signal to the whole world is that if attacked there would be very severe and bloody consequences for the aggressor.

The story is told that during World War II, Hitler contemplated attacking Switzerland. His generals talked him out of it. Two reasons were key. Firstly, Switzerland's neutrality meant that it was no threat or risk. Secondly, the rugged mountainous terrain coupled with the fact that behind every tree was likely to be a trained well-armed sniper, virtually ensured that any military aggression against Switzerland was likely to be horrendously costly.

Precisely. That is what the doctrine of armed neutrality is supposed to achieve.

Armed neutrality is not a defence doctrine likely to be adopted in New Zealand any time soon. Both civil government and society in general is presently dominated by Unbelief. Our government has recklessly decided that the defence doctrine of “others” provides an adequate defence.

Athenian naivety took us there, and will keep us there, for the foreseeable future. And in any event, does not Athens believe that all men are fundamentally good? Wars belong to a primitive past out of which mankind is evolving. Has not Athens told us repeatedly that we live in a benign strategic environment?

Yes it has. And in so doing, Athens has betrayed its own people.