The Australian Greens believe that Australia’s foreign policy should be independent, and
conducted in the interests of the Australian people and the people of countries with which we
engage.
We believe our defence policy should end its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella and that our
military forces should be geared for defensive rather than offensive operations. When facing
genuine 21st century security threats including climate change and conflict over food and water
resources, the Greens believe that military capability alone cannot guarantee human security.
The decision to base US troops in Darwin was announced by Australian Prime Minister Gillard
and US President Obama in November 2011, after many months of secret negotiations. The
decision will have far-reaching local impacts and foreign policy consequences, and yet the
announcement was made without any consultation with Australians.
We have a right to know what Australian facilities will be used, the purpose of the base, its
eventual scale and its legal status. Before signing on to an open ended commitment, the scope of
agreement between our Government and the United States must be disclosed.
The economic benefits of military bases include employment for local contractors and suppliers.
The Australian Government is proceeding as though these benefits will occur without any costs –
social, economic and environmental – that have followed military bases elsewhere.
In order to progress public debate and in the absence of any attempt by the Government to
evaluate or consult on the costs and benefits of the decision, this paper briefly examines the
experience of other communities hosting military bases worldwide.
Throughout, the plain English term ‘base’ is used intentionally, without regard to the strange
reluctance the Australian Government seems to have for the use of the word.
1|P a g e
1. Context
There are more than 1000 foreign military bases and installations around the world1;
approximately 9002 are run by the US military in 130 countries; Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea
are the four biggest ‘hosts’. France and the UK mainly have bases in the remains of their colonial
empires – the UK in the South Atlantic and around the Mediterranean, the French in the South
Pacific and Africa. Russia currently has six military facilities in former Soviet Republics and India
has one in Tajikistan.3 India and Pakistan both have bases in Kashmir. NATO and EUFOR also
have bases to support their joint operations.
Locating military forces in bases outside one's territory is an old concept – as old as the idea of
an organised army. The current global network of bases has its roots in the colonial period where
the UK, France, Spain and other European powers set up military infrastructures to compete with
each other in occupying territory, supporting commercial operations, and repressing local dissent.
The first external US base was established in 1898 at Guantánamo Bay. In 1989, the post- Cold
War restructuring of US forces included a 'base restructuring' programme intended to reduce the
number of troops in Europe and East Asia while dispersing them to an expanded overseas military
base network. Ironically, the US Declaration of Independence includes text objecting to British
rule, "For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" and "for protecting them by a mock
trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these
states."
Communities living around the bases have different experiences depending on the size and
nature of the base. Some bases are vast installations; others are unobtrusive spy bases or
intelligence facilities, joint training camps, equipment stores, radar sites, rest and recuperation
facilities, and refuelling stations. The military presence can also come in the form of port-of-call
rights, landing rights for military and intelligence aircraft, refuelling and flyover rights.
1
The number of US bases is in doubt, even the Pentagon doesn't know according to the linked 2011 article. The
Transnational Institute's report Outposts of Empire: The Case against Foreign Military Bases says 1000 worldwide. So
does Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66869/william-pfaff/manufacturing-insecurity
2
Ron Paul using the 900 number http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ronpaul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
3
http://www.tni.org/primer/foreign-military-bases-and-global-campaign-close-them
2|P a g e
2. The costs of military bases
Threat of attack
As they are launching platforms for military activities, base installations that provide troops,
weapons and intelligence are also, by definition, military targets.
Loss of sovereignty
By allowing foreign military bases to be established, the host country yields
sovereignty over activities involving that facility.
Germany opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, yet the country was used as a
base to transfer troops and equipment. The rules establishing bases – often
called Status of Forces Agreements – can include terms that keep activities at
the base secret.
For example, the US base at Menwith Hill in the UK monitors telephone and
internet communications from across Europe. The UK government is
informed at US discretion about intelligence gathered there on a 'need to know' basis. A similar
situation is seen at Pine Gap, where the US monitors communications in the Southern Hemisphere.
It is called a Joint Facility, but the Australian government is not necessarily privy to what is
collected there.
The Turkish parliament voted against the executive allowing the US to use the Incirlic base for
attacking Iraq, a decision that was overturned in 2005 when a secret Cabinet Decree allowed the
base to be used by 'friendly and allied nations' for 'logistical purposes' including the 'transport of
military materials and personnel'.
While US Presidential candidate Ron Paul has provoked controversy by stating that 'Al Qaeda
attacked because of US military bases in Saudi Arabia', Al Qaeda has objected to the growing US
military presence in the Middle East and has perhaps found resentment of US bases a tool for
mobilising and recruitment.
Foreign military bases are also used for the extra-judicial transport, imprisonment and torture of
people. Guantanamo Bay is the best known example, but many other facilities in Diego Garcia, the
Middle East and Europe are implicated in the practice known as ‘extraordinary rendition’.
Distortion of local economies
Bases can destroy jobs and livelihood by changing access to land for farming,
fishing and hunting.
In Okinawa the expansion of the base removed whole farming villages, two
thirds of Vieques became a military base and therefore unavailable to locals,
the people of Diego Garcia (the Chagossian people) were displaced entirely, while in Greenland,
traditional hunting and fishing grounds have been denied to local communities once bases were
established.
3|P a g e
The influx of people on higher wages can drive up property and commodity prices beyond the
reach of the locals, as has occurred in Guam. Bases are promoted as bringing economic prosperity
to local communities, however it is very common for large quantities of goods to be shipped in
'from back home' by the military that are sold in stores within the base.
Strain on local infrastructure, services, resources and housing
A population of military personnel – with or without their families – can be a drain on water,
infrastructure, land and lead to road congestion, the crowding of schools, etc. Pressure on local
housing markets is caused by military families driving up prices for residents.
Environmental contamination
Some communities have sustained environmental contamination
through live fire exercises and residues from weapons.
Dangerous pollutants such as nerve gasses, depleted uranium,
unexploded mines and shells are stored at military bases. If not
properly stored, such dangerous chemicals can leak onto land and
into ground water, causing sickness in local communities.
Tests at the former base at Clarke and Subic Bay revealed poisonous
chemicals, lead and fuel in the ground water, poisoning ecosystems, damaged biodiversity and
fish stocks. In 2000, US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright conceded the legacy of "serious
public and environmental problems" caused by US military bases in the Philippines but she
reiterated that the US had no legal obligation to clean up the deadly residue.
Mustard gas containers are still found in the jungles on Guam and heavy chemical pollution has
occurred Guam and Okinawa.
The radioactive contamination arising from nuclear testing by the French at military facilities in
the Pacific continues to threaten the lives and livelihoods of the people of Tahiti. Contamination
from US nuclear testing continues in the Marshall Islands and Bikini Atoll, Eniwetok Atoll and
Johnston Island.
Greenpeace exposed the dumping of hundreds of barrels of waste at the base at Thule in
Greenland, measuring high PCB readings and radioactivity.
Disputes about who is responsible for contamination at the Harold Holt Naval Base in Western
Australia is ongoing between the US and Australian authorities.
Public health
Communities near bases are often used for "Rest and Relaxation". Angeles City became a centre of
prostitution surrounding the former Clark U.S. Air Force base in the Philippines. The presence of
US forces in the past has led to thousands of neglected children of American military fathers –
50,000 in the Philippines alone.
Military prostitution is an institution found wherever US forces have been stationed since the mid20thcentury—including, in Okinawa, South Korea and the Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan and the
Pacific Islands.
4|P a g e
Violence
Communities around US bases have recorded high levels of rapes committed by foreign soldiers,
and other violent crimes. In Japan, the highly publicized gang rape of a twelve-year-old Okinawan
girl in 1995 by three U.S. Marines galvanized political activism and brought wider attention to
military-related violence against women. Then commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Admiral
Richard Macke, incensed many Japanese citizens even further when he suggested that the
servicemen were "stupid" because they could have bought a prostitute for less money than they
spent on renting the car used in the abduction. President Clinton and then U.S. ambassador Walter
Mondale issued formal apologies to the Japanese government. Okinawan police reports from 1945
to 1950 reveal 278 reported rapes by U.S. servicemen.
A local human rights group, Okinawan Women Act Against Military Violence, cite Okinawan
police records that report U.S. military personnel raped 200 Okinawan women between 1972 and
1997. This number, however, is likely to be artificially low not only because of the difficulty and
uncertainty of criminal justice processes, but also because of the historical under-reporting of sex
crimes.
A study done by Medecins Sans Frontieres in mid 2005 reveals that Kashmiri women are among
the worst sufferers of sexual violence in the world, in part due to the Indian military bases in the
region. In Kunan Poshpora, a small village in Kashmir, the soldiers of fourth Rajputana Rifles
allegedly raped about 30 women on the night of February 23, 1991, during a search operation
while men were taken away from their homes and interrogated. The ages of women raped ranged
from 13 to 80 years. According to newspaper reports, on June 17,1994, troops of Rashtriya Rifles
accompanied by two officers Major Ramesh and Major Rajkumar entered into village Hyhama and
allegedly raped and molested seven women. In another incident, troops raped a mentally ill old
woman in her house in Barbarshah in Srinagar on January 5, 1991.
Legal immunity
In many cases, the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) or the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
includes clauses that exempt troops from local laws.
In 2011 in Moldova there were protests against Russian military presence in Transnistria.
Demonstrations are connected with a Moldovan citizen shot by a soldier from Russian troops
stationed in the republic. People were angry due to the immunity of troops from prosecution and
their own court martial proceedings, which are seen to be far from being unbiased.
The Status of Forces agreement the US has with Korea (over 100 bases and facilities) states that US
servicemen cannot be held accountable for their crimes under Korean law. In 2002 two teenage
girls on their way to a birthday party were run over by a US tank. The US refused for the driver to
5|P a g e
be tried in Korea, but rather in the US where they were found not guilty. In 2006 alone, 2600 car
accidents were reported involving US servicemen and there is no avenue for redress as Korean
insurance companies refuse to cover damages.
The 1963 agreement between Australia and the US 4 holds that in circumstances where an alleged
offence is committed by an officer in the course of his or her official duties, Australia has an
international obligation to give the US primary jurisdiction to deal with the officer. This led to
Attorney General Robert McClelland issuing a certificate that allowed the killing of a cyclist in
Queensland by a US naval officer to be handled by US authorities.
Military bases destabilise regions and provoke military responses
While often established for national security reasons, bases provoke conflict and create the very
insecurity they were intended to prevent.
Iran is surrounded by 44 US bases. As Robert Johnson observed in Business Insider, 'This Could
Be Part Of The Reason Iran Is So Darn Defensive'. Iran is acutely aware that two of its neighbours
(Iraq and Afghanistan) are now occupied and that eight more neighbouring countries host US or
NATO military bases. The bases in the region provide Iran with the pretext to counter the real and
imagined threat to its national integrity and sovereignty by creating a credible deterrent, nuclear
or otherwise.
China’s People’s Liberation Army troops are based in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. That will cause
new tensions in an already volatile area.
3. What happens next?
The November 2011 announcement of the establishment of a US Marine base at Robertson
Barracks has left many questions unanswered. Will the base host intelligence services, or is it
strictly a training facility? Will military deployments be launched from there? What agreements
have been made about its potential expansion? Will weapons and munitions be stored there, and
will these include depleted uranium munitions and cluster weapons?
There is also great uncertainty about the scope of other basing and shared-use arrangements at
other defence sites in Australia, including air weapons ranges across northern Australia and at
Garden Island in Western Australia. Demanding accountability over military activities is an
essential part of a functioning democracy, but the process of establishment of this base, its purpose
and exent, shows just how much this accountability is under threat in Australia.
Produced, authorised and printed by the office of Senator Scott Ludlam
for the Australian Greens
www.scottludlam.org.au | (08) 9335 7477 | [email protected]
4
Agreement with the Government of the United States of America concerning the Status of United States Forces in
Australia, and Protocol
6|P a g e