Briefing Paper

Australia and the Pacific Islands
in US Global Forces Re-alignment

Nic Maclellan - April 2005

Nic Maclellan works as a journalist and researcher in Melbourne, Australia, and was a founding member of the Pacific Campaign for Disarmament and Security (PCDS). He has written widely on development and disarmament issues, and is co-author of three books on the Pacific region. This paper was first presented to the Peace Frontier Seminar, sponsored by the Peace Depot, in Tokyo, on 11 March 2005.

On February 18th, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi telephoned the Australian Prime Minister John Howard. He asked that Australia send troops to protect Japanese Self Defense Force (SDF) soldiers based near al-Samawah in the south of Iraq, where they are involved in road and school construction projects. Since 2003, a contingent of the Netherlands Army had provided security for the Japanese troops, but now the Dutch are withdrawing their soldiers.

Just days later, on February 22nd, Prime Minister Howard announced that Australia would send another 450 troops to Iraq to protect the SDF soldiers.

This decision has caused widespread criticism in Australia. As newspaper headlines screamed “Diggers to protect Japanese in Iraq”, the opposition Labour Party and Greens Party both opposed the new deployment. In spite of phone calls from Tokyo and London seeking Australian support, many Australians realise that the real pressure has come from Washington. As US casualties mount in Iraq, the Bush administration has been seeking international political support for the “Coalition of the Willing.”

This example of Australia-Japan military cooperation raises many issues. In spite of Japanese SDF overseas deployments for peacekeeping in recent years – to Cambodia, Timor and other countries – there is still a residue of concern about Japanese militarism in Australia. It is worth remembering that the first time an Australian Minister of Defence visited Tokyo on official business was 1992, nearly fifty years after World War Two.(1)

With the latest announcement of Australia’s military deployment to aid Japan, nearly every newspaper made ironic references to the experience of the 1940s. They noted that Australian soldiers will be protecting Japanese soldiers who are building bridges in Iraq, while in 1942-43, Japanese soldiers stood over Australian troops who were building bridges for the Burma-Thai railway.(2)

Of the 60,000 prisoners of war forced to build the strategic rail link between Thailand and Burma, over 12,000 died from beatings, torture, overwork and disease, including 2,800 Australians.(3) Amongst older Australians, there are still bitter memories of such atrocities during the Second World War. On hearing of last month’s decision to send Australian troops to work with the SDF in Iraq, the Victorian President of the Returned Servicemen’s League (RSL) said: “We can never forget or forgive what they did then, but it was a long time ago and we now need to work with them to ensure that what happened then never happens again.”(4)

In December 2004, Prime Minister Koizumi extended the deployment of Japan’s contingent of troops in Iraq. However, the announcement of the withdrawal of Dutch troops meant that the Japanese troops would operate in the southern Iraqi province of al-Muthanna without protection – so Australia has saved the political face of the US, British and Japanese governments.

Many Australian personnel were involved in the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and there are still 400 military personnel in Iraq, and 220 naval personnel on the warship HMAS Darwin patrolling the Gulf. But few of these soldiers are in frontline duties (about 120 are involved in protecting the Australian embassy staff). The latest decision has caused widespread anger in Australia, especially because the government went into last year’s general elections promising there would be no major increase in the number of Australian troops sent to Iraq.

In April 2004, in the lead-up to the Federal elections, Mr. Howard said that:

“I can definitely say we won’t be adding hundreds. I can definitely say we’re not going to have a capacity to put more regular soldiers on the ground…. I’ve made that clear to the Americans and the British all the way along.” (5)

Six days before the election, Mr. Howard stated:

“We're maintaining the general level of forces that we’ve had there. We don’t have any plans for a dramatic increase.” (6)

But now that the elections are over and Howard’s conservative Liberal/National coalition has been returned to power, Australia is sending an extra 450 troops to Iraq. The contingent, costing $300 million, will include an infantry company, a team to train Iraqi soldiers and 40 armoured vehicles from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Darwin. The Australian deployment could last for 12 months - or longer.

Broader strategic relationship

Under Prime Ministers Koizumi and Howard, Japan and Australia have become outspoken supporters of the Bush administration’s global agenda. Both governments have committed troops to Iraq in spite of significant domestic political opposition. The Australian government supported the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, against massive public opposition – nearly one million people rallied in cities around Australia on 12-14 February 2003, to protest Australian involvement in George Bush’s war.

It is important to recognise however, that the US global forces re-alignment has support from both the Democrat and Republican parties, and began soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Australia’s involvement in Iraq in support of US policy is part of a broader strategic relationship, through the ANZUS treaty and other defence and intelligence agreements.

Today, the US government is looking for ways to streamline its global military operations while venturing into new areas, in an era of “perpetual war.” The United States is seeking support for operations against Iran and North Korea. As strategic US allies, Australia and Japan can either choose to push for peace or to help globalise war and suffering.

In 1991, then President George Herbert Bush set out a new vision for the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein’s withdrawal from Kuwait:

“What is at stake is a New World Order, where diverse nations are drawn together in a common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace, security, freedom and the rule of law.”

At that time, the rhetoric of the New World Order promised liberation for the Iraqi people, democracy for the people of Kuwait, the settlement of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. Today, we hear the same rhetoric of liberation, of freedom, of democracy. Time will tell whether the Kurds gain their right to self-determination; whether the occupation will end soon for the long-suffering people of Iraq; whether the belligerent occupying powers will address the long term needs of civilian casualties, or cleaning up depleted uranium, or allowing Iraqis to run their own country.

Just as the Romans built roads to conquer the barbarian hoards, or the British Navy policed the Oceans in the emerging era of imperialism, so in the 21st Century the New Romans in Washington propose a new military architecture.As the US defence budget increases under the “Revolution in Military Affairs” and the “War on Terror”, there are four key elements to the US military strategy, combining:

1. an increased role of space and satellite technologies in warfare, with continuing development of Star Wars, Missile Defence, stealth technologies, and the capacity for “real-time” control of military operations
2. the expansion of Special Forces and covert operations
3. the development of US military bases in areas traditionally out of bounds during the Cold War (new bases in Central Asia and the Middle East, and NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe)
4. attempts to preserve a US monopoly of high-tech weaponry, denying others “weapons of mass destruction” while building a new generation of “usable” nuclear weapons and refusing to abide by arms control treaties on landmines, anti-ballistic missiles, nuclear free zones, nuclear testing and more.

All these policies have been amplified since the terror attacks of September 11, and the “War on Terror” which has provided the rationale for increased military budgets and overseas deployments. As the Pentagon seeks to develop strategic flexibility through it's Global Defence Posture Review, they are seeking new ways to operate, without increasing the public protests that are familiar wherever US troops are based overseas.

So where does Australia fit into this new strategy?

Military bases in Australia

The first, crucial element is political. The US administration needs to show that other countries support its policies in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, and needs allies for its long-term strategic competition with China. So the Australian and Japanese deployments in Iraq are vital, not only for their physical presence, but also for the political support to the “Coalition of the Willing” (especially at a time when Spain, Honduras, Poland, Ukraine and now the Netherlands are withdrawing troops).

The second key element is geographic. Like Japan, Australia has a strategic geographic position in the Asia-Pacific region. Both countries host vital US military facilities – in Japan and Okinawa, key naval, marine and air force bases; in Australia, major satellite, communications and training facilities.

Since September 2001, military bases throughout Asia and the Pacific have been used in the war against Afghanistan and Iraq, with naval, air and Special Forces units deployed from US installations in Hawai’i, Guam, Okinawa and Japan.

The US-Australia joint facility at Pine Gap, located near Alice Springs in the desert of central Australia, plays a crucial role in satellite, intelligence and ballistic missile programs, and was involved in targeting operations during the war on Iraq.

US bases upgraded in the Pacific Islands

Although Hawai’i and Guam have hosted strategic military installations for over a century, these bases are being expanded today to support American military operations in the Asia-Pacific region.

In 1898, the United States annexed the Hawaiian Islands at the same time as seizing Cuba, Guam and the Philippines. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, the US military established strategic bases at Pearl Harbour (Hawai’i), Apra Harbour (Guam) and Subic Bay (Philippines). (7)

More than a century later, US military installations in Hawai’i, Guam, the Marshall Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) link up with the wider network of US bases in Okinawa, Japan, South Korea and Australia. (8) Australia, France, the United States and New Zealand also maintain intelligence and satellite installations that monitor e-mail, fax and phone communications throughout the region. (9)

Hawai’i serves as the major military hub in the Pacific. The Hawaiian Islands host the headquarters of the US Pacific Command (PACOM), which is responsible for US military operations over more than 50 percent of the Earth’s surface - from the west coast of the United States to the east coast of Africa, from the Arctic to Antarctic, across 16 time zones.

The naval base at Pearl Harbour is just one of a series of US military installations in the Hawaiian Islands, which amount to more than 200,000 acres of land (including 108,000 acres of land on the island of Hawai’i and nearly 25 per cent of the island of Oahu). Hawai’i is host to a major Marine Corps Base, the US Air Force’s Hickam airfield and the US Army’s Fort Shafter, Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Area, amongst many other facilities. The US Navy is also conducting missile tests at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) at Barking Sands, on the western end of Kauai Island.

Since September 11, the US armed forces have undertaken a significant expansion of operations in Hawai’i, including:

1. he resumption of army training at Makua and the proposed expansion of army training areas in Pohakuloa and Honolulu;
2. plans for increased Marine Corps jungle warfare training at Waikane and a Marine Corps urban warfare training facility at Waimanalo;
3. missile defence test launches at Nohili and related command and communications activities at Mahaka Ridge, Kokee, Kaena, Haleakala, Kihei and Mauna Kea;
4. the proposed expansion of NASA military space programs on the sacred mountain Mauna Kea.

Another important strategic installation in the Pacific is the US missile range at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, which is central to the development of US missile and anti-missile technology.

The major testing ground for missile defence systems is the US Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) base, located at Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. For decades since the 1960s, the lagoon in Kwajalein Atoll has been the splashdown point for intercontinental ballistic missiles test-fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.(10)

Kwajalein Atoll is made up of nearly 100 coral islands surrounding a 2,300 square-kilometre lagoon (the largest lagoon in the world). Under US Army control since 1964, the USAKA/KMR lease covers eleven islands in the atoll. The Kwajalein bases are a US$4 billion complex, including radar tracking, intelligence collection and missile launching facilities.

US bases in the Hawai’i and Kwajalein Atoll are also being used for Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) development, which now appears to be the favoured system for deployment by the US military.

The US government is investing millions of dollars in upgrading bases and installations in the territory of Guam – a Micronesian island to the east of the Philippines. The US territory is currently competing with Hawai’i to homeport a US nuclear aircraft carrier group - basing a carrier in Guam would save the US Navy money by reducing the number of days each year that a carrier is required to cross the Pacific Ocean. Three Los Angeles class attack submarines currently based in Guam could support the carrier strike group. (11)

In August 2000, the USAF confirmed that it had moved conventional air-launched cruise missiles to Guam, which USAF officials said “will allow the USA to respond more quickly to crises, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.”(12) In February 2004, six B-52 bombers, along with about 300 support personnel, returned to Guam for the first time since 1990.(13)

The bombers will operate on a continuous program of rotation, usually 90 days, a move the Pentagon described as a “deterrent” measure against North Korea.

Other aircraft from Andersen Air Force Base use the Northern Mariana Islands bombing range in Farallon de Medinilla, a 206-acre island about 45 miles north of Saipan, as the military’s only live-fire training location in the western Pacific.

Sea Swap

In Western Australia, on the Indian Ocean coast, the US and Australian governments are co-operating in a new program called “Sea Swap”. Under the scheme, the US Navy would use Western Australia as an exchange point for sailors of the US Seventh Fleet. After deployments in the Gulf, Middle East and Indian Oceans, US warships normally have to travel a long way home to their homeports at Yokosuka, Hawai’i or San Diego. But under “Sea Swap”, navy crew coming in and out of theatres of war go straight to Western Australia instead of their homeport, saving time and money. Thousands of new US naval personnel are flown in and out of Western Australia to meet US warships at the Cockburn Sound naval base. The first trial swap took place in January 2003, and that year six swaps were held in Australia and Singapore.

We’re often told about the benefits that come to local communities from US naval visits, as sailors spend their wages on “Rest and Recreation”. But the media don’t talk about the vital role played by port visits to maintain US military deployments in conflict zones.

It’s worth following the trail of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group, to show how visits to Japan and Australia are stepping stones for warfare in the Middle East.

In July 2002, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its support ships left their current homeport of Everett, Washington State to travel to the Gulf. On the way, the aircraft carrier made a port call to Sasebo in Japan. Their mission in the Middle East? To support “Operation Enduring Freedom” and “Operation Southern Watch”, the bombardment of Iraqi military installations (and nearby civilians), in the lead-up to the US invasion of the country.

After providing support to these operations in 2002, the USS Abraham Lincoln crossed the Indian Ocean back to Fremantle, Western Australia, where crews were exchanged. Several warships accompanying the aircraft carrier moored in Cockburn Sound (south of Fremantle, Western Australia), while the guided missile destroyer USS Fletcher came into Fremantle for two weeks to pick up a new crew. The crew flew in from the United States. While the ships were in Western Australia, aircraft from the USS Abraham Lincoln conducted bombing training at the Lancelin training area, north of Perth.

The entire carrier battle group and airwing then returned to the northern stretches of the Gulf, where they helped deliver the opening air strikes and cruise missiles on Baghdad in March 2003. In this ten-month period, a total of 16,500 sorties were flown and 1.6 million pounds of ordnance were used during “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, as well as 265,118 pounds expended during the pre-war bombing runs in 2002.(14)

When the USS Abraham Lincoln arrived back in the United States in May 2003, President George W. Bush famously landed on the carrier’s deck, dressed in a combat uniform. Above him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read "Mission Accomplished." Unfortunately for President Bush, that proud boast has not been achieved, as criticism has mounted over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the continuing violence in Iraq.

Training grounds and weapons testing

As the US naval pilots tested their weapons at Lancelin, Western Australia in January 2003, they were preparing for the “Shock and Awe” bombardment of Baghdad.

The use of wide open spaces in Australia as a bombing range for the US military is increasingly important, as local communities elsewhere reject further US military use of their land (such as the closure of the US military base in Vieques Puerto Rico in 2003, or the closure of the bombardment range at Kaho’olawe in Hawai’i in the 1990s).

US Vice Admiral Archie Clemins has stated that traditional US training grounds around the world are disappearing and that the wide spaces of Australia provided an attractive alternative:

“You have to have places to drop bombs, you have to have places to shoot live weapons, places to fly planes over that make noise, places where you can actually test and exercise your capabilities. I think Australia in the future is going to be one of the places we'd like to exercise with the Australians, as well as with the US Navy. You now have some of the finest ranges in the Western Pacific which we cannot get anywhere else.” (15)

In July 2004, the US and Australian governments agreed to develop a Joint Combined Training Centre. At a cost of tens of millions of dollars, new facilities will be built at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland, and the Bradshaw Training Area and Delamere Air Weapons Range, both in the Northern Territory. These three facilities will be linked to US bases by the latest computer technologies, through the Pacific War Fighting Centre in Hawai’i. (16)

Of course, these weapons training programs can cause significant damage to coastal areas, reefs and the precious marine environment. As in Japan and Okinawa, local communities can face serious hazards - in January 2003, several bushfires were started by target practice in Western Australia, and a crashed aircraft narrowly missed houses.

Military exercises

For many years, the US and Australian armed forces have participated in a series of joint military exercises and wargames – from “Kangaroo” to “RIMPAC” and “Tasman Tiger”.

In June this year, military personnel from the two countries will participate in their biggest ever joint military exercise between the United States and Australia, spread right across Australia’s Top End.

Talisman Saber 2005 will involve 30,000 military personnel participants. Military activities will occur in civilian facilities such as airports at Sydney, Rockhampton and Brisbane, and also at military training bases (Queensland’s Shoalwater Bay, Townsville and Cowley Beach and the Northern Territory’s Delamere). The Tasman Sea, Timor Sea and Coral Sea will also be used for military exercises and access.

The exercises will involve firing live ammunition and explosives from both land bases and aircraft, sinking of decommissioned vessels at sea, the use of high power sonar and active sonobuoys, amphibious assaults, parachuting and land force manoeuvres. Talisman Saber officials refuse to reveal if Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons will be used during the exercises, as they were during exercises at Vieques.

Missile Defence

Another key area for US-Australian co-operation (like US-Japan cooperation), is research and development of missile defence systems, including so-called Theatre Missile Defence (TMD). I believe the introduction of missile defence systems in the United States is not in Australia's security interests. Even if the technology could be made to work – and that is uncertain, as tests continue to fail - Russia, China and other countries in the Asia Pacific region will acquire stronger military capabilities in response. The US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty has weakened international arms control regimes, which has a negative impact on Australia's security. (17)

In spite of this, Australia has been working with the US military to develop and test TMD systems. In December 2003, the Australian Government announced it would co-operate with the US on missile defence testing, concentrating on research and development. A memorandum of understanding on missile defence was signed between Australian Defence Minister Senator Robert Hill and his US counterpart, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in Washington in July 2004. (18)

Australia's Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) has already worked with the US Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation (BMDO) in a project codenamed “Project Dundee” (Down Under Early Warning Experiment).

These tests have been using over-the-horizon radar to track US rockets - fired either in the desert near Woomera (a rocket testing range in South Australia), or out to sea from the northwest coast of Western Australia.

In 1995, DSTO co-operated with the US BMDO in a research project involving sensor, tracking and communications technologies and US rocket firings from Woomera. In September 1997, four ballistic missiles were fired from a secret coastal site between Broome and Port Hedland in the north of Western Australia. They were tracked by land and space based sensors, including Australia's Jindalee over-the-horizon radar, as they travelled at high speed, landing in the ocean.

The then Australian Minister for Defence, Ian McLachlan said: “The aim of Project Dundee is to investigate the possibility of detecting missile launches in their 'boost phase' immediately after launch.” (19) In April 2003, DSTO conducted further trials to see if the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar could be used for missile defence.

This January, a delegation of US officials visited Australia to discuss Canberra's further commitment to the US missile defence program. According to media reports:

“The US is interested in Australia's Jindalee over-the-horizon radar technology, which protects Australia's northern approaches, and is keen to know if it could be used to track incoming missiles. The US is also interested in the new air warfare destroyers that Australia will buy over the next 10 years. The ships will have a ballistic missile capability and, if fitted with the new longer-range SM-3 missiles, could provide a mobile platform for intercepting missiles.” (20)

It is important to stress that these developments have occurred under both Republican and Democrat administrations in Washington. In July 2000, Clinton administration Secretary of Defence William Cohen visited Australia and said that the US wants to expand testing TMD systems from bases in Western Australia. He also stated that the Pine Gap satellite station was a key installation in the new Star Wars system - a key component of the early warning system for any US missile defence system. In 1999, US Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters revealed that the Pine Gap base would be more important in the US early-warning system for detecting missile launches than the previous base at Nurrungar (near Woomera in South Australia), which was closed in the 1990s.

The US-Australian base at Pine Gap is now being upgraded to support TMD programs, with a new Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS).

US missile defence plans have not only angered China, but are likely to destabilise relations between regional powers. The US and Japan have been cooperating on the development of Navy TMD systems since 1999. The two countries are working to develop upgrades to the ship-based TMD system, on ships that could travel close to North Korea and China. Other, more sophisticated systems based on Aegis destroyers, could be ready in 4-5 years also allowing the US to attack missiles right after their launch.

The people's movement

The war in Iraq, the development of Star Wars weapons, pressure on Iran and North Korea, massive spending on new generations of nuclear weapons – it all seems very depressing.

But the overwhelming military power of the United States should not blind us to its political weaknesses: this is, after all, the country that couldn’t bully it’s way to a new UN Security Council resolution in January 2003, couldn’t bribe the Turkish Parliament to open the way for a northern front in the attack on Iraq, couldn’t persuade millions of citizens that Saddam’s atrocious human rights abuses or his supposed cache of weapons justified the invasion of Iraq. Relations between the United States and the European Union continue to be stretched by economic and political competition, even after the recent visits by President Bush and Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice.

The growing significance of China as an economic powerhouse has complicated security policy for Australia. In spite of the close links between Washington and Canberra, Australian sales of iron ore, bauxite, natural gas and other resources to fuel China’s economic boom means that even a conservative government cannot support all of Bush's policies on China and North Korea.

In 2003, our Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was criticised by the conservative press, after he made a speech in Beijing saying Australia would not automatically go to war alongside the United States if there was a clash in the Taiwan Straits. Just last month, Prime Minister Howard announced that he would support the European Union as it announced plans to end its arms embargo on Beijing, established after the Tien An Mien massacre in 1989, even though Tokyo and Washington are opposed to such sales.

Although the level of public protest has faded in recent months in Australia, there is still a significant level of public opposition to support of current US strategic policy. A majority of Australians do not support the ongoing deployment of troops to Iraq - a vital legacy of the massive popular protest in 2003, as millions of people marched for peace, from Melbourne to Manila, from Athens to Apia, from Jakarta to Johannesburg (In my city Melbourne alone, 150,000 rallied on the eve of the war on Iraq, and another 100,000 marched in the first ten days after the war began.)

Groups in Australia are continuing to organise against the war on Iraq – on March 20, the second anniversary of the invasion, there will be protests in major Australian cities against the latest deployment of troops. Peace activists are also organising against the militarisation of their local communities – there are community protests in Western Australia against Sea Swap, and groups in Brisbane and Darwin are preparing to challenge the environmental and political effects of the Talisman Saber wargames next June.

There is also a significant opportunity to discuss issues of peace and nuclear disarmament over the next few months: with the May 2005 review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 2005.

Many Australians are fearful of the new global environment, especially after the bombing of tourists in Bali in October 2002. But there has also been a lot of public concern over the way in which the “War on Terror” has been used to justify a reduction of civil liberties – for example, since 9/11 there has been extensive debate over the fate of David Hicks and Mahmdoh Habib, two Australians held without trial at Guantanamo Bay (Habib has just recently returned to Australia after three years in detention, after the US authorities decided they would not charge him with terrorist offences, Hicks remains in detention in Cuba).

Above all, the events of the last few years have promoted some valuable debate in the community about how we can promote security – not military security, but real human security in our daily lives.

For some, supporting US military policy is the best way. The re-election of the Howard government last October and the Bush administration last November show that many people are willing to ignore the horrors of Abu Graib and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But there are others seeking alternatives.

In the 1980s, the English Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously stated: “There is no society. There are only families and individuals”. Thatcher was also famous for her TINA principle: “There Is No Alternative”. But the global protests against the war on Iraq are a sign that people do value their own society and community, and want a say in how it’s run. They do seek alternatives to a new century of warfare.

The call for peace in Iraq is part of a larger process to rebuild community and seek new options after more than two decades of neo-liberal restructuring. That’s the challenge before us – to create alternatives to war based on values of humanity, of human rights, of self-determination, of the peaceful resolution of conflict.

Pacific Campaign for Disarmament & Security

 

©2007 Pacific Peace Working Group