CNSNews.com,
The United States and Australian governments formalized two significant military agreements Wednesday, taking an already strong defense alliance to a new level.
At talks in Washington, U.S. and Australian foreign affairs and defense chiefs agreed to cooperate in developing and testing a shield against enemy ballistic missile attack.
They also agreed to step up the level of “inter-operability” and joint training between the two armed forces by setting up combined training facilities in northern and north-eastern Australia.
The agreement made no reference to the U.S. pre-positioning equipment at a base in Australia for deployment elsewhere — a controversial issue for Australian “peace activist” groups — although Australian officials did not rule out the possibility that the U.S. could base training equipment on Australian soil.
The Australian ministers also reiterated that their government would not withdraw forces from Iraq.
Australian and U.S. forces fought together in most major conflicts of the 20th century, and the two countries' conservative incumbents have drawn even closer since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. prompted President Bush to launch the war on terror.
The agreements announced Wednesday are likely to bring Prime Minister John Howard's government more flak from critics at home as well as from regional governments uneasy about some U.S. foreign policies — and Australia's support for them.
Howard's rival in a general election due later this year, Australian Labor Party (ALP) leader Mark Latham, says the relationship with the U.S. is important, but opposes many of Howard's policies vis-a-vis the alliance, including support for the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) program and for the war in Iraq.
Latham has vowed to pull Australian forces out of Iraq by Christmas if he forms the next government, but the ALP – like its natural political ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair's British Labor Party — is split on the policy.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who met with visiting senior ALP figures last month, told reporters in Washington Wednesday that it was clear there were deep divisions in the party over the Iraq issue.
Wider Australian society is also split, according to recent polls.
Two weeks ago, a Newspoll survey for The Australian newspaper found 45 percent support for Australian troops remaining in Iraq until at least the second half of 2005, and 47 percent in favor of them returning by Christmas. Another eight percent of respondents were uncommitted.
In the same poll, 50 percent of respondents said that if Labor won the election and withdraw troops from Iraq as promised, that would damage Australia's ties with Washington. Forty-four percent said it would make no difference to the relationship.
'The world can change'
The bilateral agreements reached this week came during an annual ministerial meeting involving Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and their Australian counterparts, Alexander Downer and Robert Hill.
In a statement, the Pentagon said the two nations would work together to develop, test and in the future potentially operate missile defense systems.
The 25-year agreement will also allow information exchange and include more specific arrangements as the countries agree on various projects and activities.
Early work would include the development of advanced radar that could help detect ballistic missiles shortly after they were launched, the Pentagon said.
Another aim in the near-term aim would be to look at options for equipping a new Australian destroyer with BMD capability.
The statement said both countries “share deep concerns about the proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical and biological.”
The BMD program aims to provide a shield against potential future missile attacks by terrorist groups or “rogue” states such as North Korea or Iran, both of which have suspect nuclear programs.
It envisages multi-layered systems to detect and intercept incoming missiles in-flight, beginning with radar systems and missile launchers based in Alaska to thwart any missile attack from the east.
The Labor Party and other critics of Canberra's desire to become involved in the BMD plan argue that Australia is not under threat of missile attack from any likely enemy.
Addressing that point in a radio interview Thursday, Howard acknowledged that a missile attack was not likely right now.
“I don't know of anybody at the moment who's likely to attack us but the world can change,” he said, adding that he could not understand why anyone would be opposed to developing the technology.
His defense minister, Hill, also tackled the objection, telling reporters in Washington that Australia regarded BMD as a long-term investment.
“We believe we have a responsibility to address not only the threats of today, but the threats that we might face in the future,” he said.
“Our new technologies have now made possible the ability to defend against incoming ballistic missiles, whether it's defending troops on the ground or larger areas, and we think it's important that Australia invest in those new technologies.”
One of those new technologies of particular interest to the Pentagon is an Australian-pioneered “over-the-horizon” radar called Jindalee or JORN, which began operating last year.
Originally designed to track planes and ships across northern Australia's vast expanse of coastline and ocean, it later became evident that JORN could be enhanced to do much more than originally intended.
Last February, Hill announced that the system would be improved to increase its range and enable it to track smaller objects, such as missiles.
Earlier this week, Hill said that preliminary trials of the possible application of JORN to missile defense had proven successful, and more demanding tests would be held later in the year.
Observed by U.S. officials, the trials were held around Darwin in the Northern Territory in April, and examined whether JORN technology could improve the detection of ballistic missiles during the early boost phase, thus allowing earlier interception.
Hill called the work a prudent investment, and characterized Labor's opposition as “short sighted and anti-American.”
