Let’s talk national security
It’s a scary world out there. In response, local policymakers have talked publicly about the need for a “national security conversation”.
This idea has also been mooted in Australia and Canada. In Australia, Professor Rory Medcalf, of the Australian National University, has specifically talked about a conversation that focuses on confidence and inclusion, rather than fear and exclusion. However, it’s not easy for policymakers to do this, particularly in a country like New Zealand, which until recently has not seen itself as a target for the kind of threats the rest of the world faces.
The idea of New Zealand being distant from such threats took hold after the 1984 Labour government walked away from the Anzus treaty, and it was certainly a perception that held true until the Christchurch terrorist attacks in 2019.
A definition of “national security” is now being debated in those departments in Wellington where you have to surrender your cellphone and computer on the way in. It’s a sticky issue. Neither is the “national interest” an easy thing to determine, unless you’re able to state clearly what those interests are.
In a speech last year, the director-general of the NZ Security Intelligence Service, Rebecca Kitteridge, outlined several threats to our security, including violent extremism, foreign interference and espionage. She also noted that disinformation, propaganda and conspiracy theories all had the potential to radicalise our citizens, and highlighted the increasing risks to democracy, the economy, intellectual property and critical infrastructure.
In February this year, we witnessed some of the effects of disinformation and radicalisation, when a mostly anti-vaccine mandate protest ended in violence in Wellington.
Understanding threats, and being able to have a robust and mature conversation about them, requires getting our heads around quite complex definitions. We also need to decide where to set the dial between privacy and security. Fortunately, some of our best minds are at work on this, including former solicitor-general Sir Terence Arnold and eminent lawyer Matanuku Mahuika, who are reviewing the Intelligence and Security Act 2017. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) is also developing a new National Security Strategy and Long- Term Insights programme.
Professor Medcalf has argued that national security policymakers are not the right people to have this conversation with the public, as there is a danger they might treat public engagement as a “tick the box” exercise. In his view, it needs an independent commissioner. More importantly, I think, it needs to be well-resourced.
Think of it as a Retirement Commission where, rather than ensuring we have a future roof over our heads, we ensure a future where we are able to sleep better at night.
Perhaps the best illustration of the impact of national security policy on our everyday lives was the response to COVID-19. During the pandemic, we locked ourselves in our homes, used digital identity cards and wore masks. Those who rejected the seriousness of the threat lost their jobs, if only temporarily, and were shunned and ridiculed by mainstream society, exacerbating existing divisions.
Mental-health issues, financial difficulties and domestic violence increased. We paid a heavy price, only to learn it was just a down payment and the threat remained. But we also learnt a valuable lesson about how to deal with what the DPMC calls a “substantial threat”. We learnt that the government, at the beginning, develops a plan to deal with the threat by collating new knowledge and listening to experts. We learnt that it may enforce emergency measures, infringing on both our privacy and freedom of movement. We also learnt that, when it comes to our safety, we can free up an enormous amount of brain space trying to understand what is going on and what we need to do. Taking an interest in national security now, rather than waiting for a crisis, seems common sense. To paraphrase that great expert in emergency measures – Leon Trotsky – you may not be interested in national security, but national security is interested in you. We also learnt that, when it comes to our safety, we can free up an enormous amount of brain space trying to understand what is going on and what we need to do. Taking an interest in national security now, rather than waiting for a crisis, seems common sense. To paraphrase that great expert in emergency measures – Leon Trotsky – you may not be interested in national security, but national security is interested in you.
This article first appeared in NZ Listener, November 19, 2022
