Reuters/US Navy After a two week hiaitus (primarily to recharge the batteries), this week I thought I'd kick things off by offering a retort to a claim made by James Holmes on The Diplomat website in relation to Australia's seeming recalcitrance to "get on board" the US shift to Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. In an interview with the on-line magazine, Professor Holmes said the following in relation to Australia..."To start with, much of what I wrote about that was predicated on finding a more central position in maritime Asia for heavy forces, presumably in Australia. That would position U.S. forces ideally to move between the Pacific and Indian Ocean theaters. The Australian government, however, saw fit to torpedo that idea with extreme prejudice when it appeared in a recent CSIS report. Whether that represents the end of the matter or the opening stage of tough negotiations, I guess we will see. If we can't strike some sort of basing agreement with Australia, our position in the Indian Ocean -- centered on Bahrain, inside the Strait of Hormuz and within easy reach of Iranian forces -- will be increasingly tenuous." (E)
What should be noted in response to the above excerpt is that at no point has the Australian government declared that it would not allow US naval use of Australian bases, quite the opposite in fact. After the release of the CSIS report, the main concern in Australia was related to whether Australia would agree to a US carrier fleet being based at HMAS Stirling, concerns that the Australian government moved quickly to dispel (and which the CSIS report did not repeat in its final recommendations to the US Senate Committee on Defence, as outlined here by one of the report's authors, Dr Michael Green). Although it could be argued that Australia already plays host to US bases, namely at Pine Gap (E) and again with the recent stationing of US Marines in Darwin, the US does not exercise unilateral control over bases in Australia. Any agreement drawn up by the armed forces of both countries explicitly notes that facilities in Australia are to be jointly administered.
Defence Minister Smith, in his response to the CSIS report and media speculation, noted that Australia expected to see a much greater use of Fleet Base West (HMAS Stirling) by the US Navy, hence at no stage did Australia "torpedo" the idea of US naval assets using Australian bases or being housed in them. Furthermore, Mr Smith explicitly made mention of the importance of the Indian Ocean and the manner in which Australia might assist the US in maintaining a increased naval presence in the region. Hence the suggestion that Australia was somehow prevaricating in its reponse to the stationing of US naval assets in its ports is unfair and needed to be corrected.
What should be noted in response to the above excerpt is that at no point has the Australian government declared that it would not allow US naval use of Australian bases, quite the opposite in fact. After the release of the CSIS report, the main concern in Australia was related to whether Australia would agree to a US carrier fleet being based at HMAS Stirling, concerns that the Australian government moved quickly to dispel (and which the CSIS report did not repeat in its final recommendations to the US Senate Committee on Defence, as outlined here by one of the report's authors, Dr Michael Green). Although it could be argued that Australia already plays host to US bases, namely at Pine Gap (E) and again with the recent stationing of US Marines in Darwin, the US does not exercise unilateral control over bases in Australia. Any agreement drawn up by the armed forces of both countries explicitly notes that facilities in Australia are to be jointly administered.
Defence Minister Smith, in his response to the CSIS report and media speculation, noted that Australia expected to see a much greater use of Fleet Base West (HMAS Stirling) by the US Navy, hence at no stage did Australia "torpedo" the idea of US naval assets using Australian bases or being housed in them. Furthermore, Mr Smith explicitly made mention of the importance of the Indian Ocean and the manner in which Australia might assist the US in maintaining a increased naval presence in the region. Hence the suggestion that Australia was somehow prevaricating in its reponse to the stationing of US naval assets in its ports is unfair and needed to be corrected.
RSS Feed