Towards a critical discourse analysis of New Zealand security policy in Afghanistan.

Rather than ask why New Zealand supported the intervention, this paper focuses on how representations of New Zealand and the international terrorist threat resulted in public acquiescence to a pre-emptive strike by the world's sole superpower against one of the poorest, most war-torn countries in the world. The paper concludes that legitimacy was achieved through the blending of themes of terrorism and war, national interest and democracy, rule of law and human rights, to produce an ambiguous ‘international campaign against terrorism’ that allowed for picking and choosing of the most convenient position on different matters. The alternative—to refuse moral and material support for the United States-led ‘war on terror’—was to risk New Zealand's membership of the United States-led international community and a ‘seat at the table’ in future international trade and security negotiations. As such, any campaign benefits appear to have accrued to New Zealand rather than Afghanistan or the Afghan people, especially given the parlous state of that country in 2018. A wide-ranging debate within New Zealand on the purpose of such interventions is needed before similar commitments are made in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]