The Government and state agencies need to be more open about New Zealand’s military role in Iraq, Harmeet Singh Sooden argues.
OPINION: On the eve of New Zealand’s military deployment to Iraq, Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant General Tim Keating told the New Zealand public that the NZDF was determined, as was the Government, to be transparent about New Zealand’s role in Iraq, but would not compromise on the security of those being deployed.
However, the official response to the recent revelations of a change in the NZDF mandate to include an ‘advise and assist’ capability, to take one example, suggests otherwise – a lack of governmental transparency that is not justifiable on the grounds of security.
Obscurantism of this kind is undermining the ability of New Zealanders to have a say in Government decisions regarding New Zealand’s military presence in the region.
In early 2015, Cabinet considered a paper outlining New Zealand’s possible contribution to Operation Inherent Resolve, the US military operation directed primarily against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis).
The Cabinet paper described the operation as being organised around “four pillars”: the Building Partner Capacity (BPC) missions in Iraq; a systematic campaign of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria; missions to ‘advise, assist and accompany’ the Iraqi security forces to plan and execute ground operations against Isis; and other activities in respect to Syria such as training vetted Syrian opposition forces.
New Zealand officials had investigated all four pillars in late 2014 as possible options for direct or indirect New Zealand contribution.
They recommended the BPC mission as the most appropriate option, partly based on the assertion that “BPC contributions are explicitly about training and do not constitute combat missions”.
