The N.Z. Army in the next decade Comment from the capital

Press, 3 October 1977, Page 16

The N.Z. Army in the next decade Comment from the capital

Rv

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

The defence White Paper, to be tabled in Parliament in something over a month, is likely to be more than the collection of guidelines offered five years ago. Much has happened since then, both to New Zealand's policy on the containment of communist-inspired dissidence in South-East Asia, and to the support this country could expect from other nations in certain circumstances.

Putting it succinctly, whatever defence policy New Zealand has belongs to the last decade, or even further back. An effective White Paper must define the basic shape of our forces, and particularly that of the army, for the next decade. It was the, late John Foster Dulles whose concepts were most responsible for reorienting New Zealand from a Middle Eastern to South-East Asian role. The result of this was to involve New Zealand — and specifically New Zealand troops — in conflagrations which began with Korea, passed through the Malaysian troubles from 1947 to 1960, and then passed into the Indo-Chinese struggles. What began in Malaysia as the Commonwealth Brigade did not long survive the curtailment of British forces and changes in Australian policies. Today we have an understrength battalion in Singapore, on a “training only” understanding, and an agreement that our men will stay only as long as they are welcome. Perhaps New Zealand’s gain here has been political. Our men have stayed, now under their own flag, while communist forces have

pressed through South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia onto the high-country borders of Malaysia and Thailand.

Their continued presence has outlasted the once-pow-erful South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, whose military office in Bangkok was forever preparing “contingency plans” for the emergency which never came. It was perhaps inevitable that a coprosperity, mutual-aid group such as the Association of South-East Asian Nations should replace S.E.A.T.O.

Now New Zealand has individual ties with all these nations, but no voice in A.S.E.A.N. There is peace even with the adolescent giant Indonesia, once a threat under Dr Sukarno. Friendship and trade, yes . . . but where do our forces fit in?

The New Zealand Army has worked very hard in peacetime to preserve its stance as an army-in-being. In some ways it is still running down from the far-off World War II days, with never enough money available to allow full deployment in training or to permit the replacement of buildings originally hastily constructed years ago. The army does not Perhaps the closest it came to grizzling' was wher? a retiring Chief of General Staff (Sir Leonard Thornton) made the considered statement that “we have just about reached the bottom of the barrel.” Since then, according to the cynics, New Zealand politicians have forced the Army through that bottom. This is what the White Paper, hopefully, will be about. In the meantime, much has been done, with defence

funds which, fractionally, are a little less each year when compared with those of such lusty and noisy departments as Education. Some of the old buildings are indeed falling down, but expert maintenance keeps them from final collapse. Quite a bit of building has beerr done. If the battalion had to come home to Papakura, Linton, Waiouru and Burnham it could be accommodated now with the single men in barracks and married men and their families in houses. That could not have happened when the move was last considered in 1973.

There is not, quite, a recruitment problem in the Army as there is in some other services. Why this is so is hard to figure, for there has been no pay restructuring since 1965. It is true there have been annual increments, but the basic out-of-date structure has stood.

The fixed contract system, whereby a regular soldier signed on for a specific time, has been replaced by a standard long contract (20 years), with provision that a soldier can withdraw after a time by giving notice. The cynics predicted that this would be the end of the regular Army. It has not been.

There is a loss of trained specialist personnel, but this could stop as soon as army specialist rates are more closely related to those in “civvy street.” An inspection of the latest Army rolls, however, shows that enlistments are more than keeping up with withdrawals (839 to 730 in the twelve months ending last August 31).

This is not a new development. The rolls of last

year showed both releases and enlistments down, 581 releases compared with 505 enlistments. But at no time was the army in crisis. One firm decision which has been made is that a restructuring of pay will be carried out by the end of this year. This, it is promised, will “put everybody right.” It could even bring back those specialists who have left and who, under the new system, will have a limited right of return if they deisre.

Something well on the way is the production of new, more efficient clothing for our soliders. First among this is the disruptive uniform (once called camouflage) designed to protect the field soldier under fire. This has been ordered, tailored and will be issued in about six months. Coming out at the same time are uniforms in Dacron, a long-time replacement for the old battledress. There is a smart walking-out outfit and a shirt and shorts combination, in a dark greenkhaki shade, which would give top concealment in jungle-country, though it might look out-of-place in the western desert. This is the bright side of a very small army-in-being. After some years of uneasy peace there is nothing wrong with its morale. Its leaders are in good heart and have chances of working alongside the soldiers of other countries. The latest communications equipment is “in the pipeline.”

For weapons, and for the task ahead, it is up to the politicians; but infantry weapons and tactical knowhow have not changed so much down the years.