Chapter 2 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government
of the United States of America Relating to the Operation of and Access to an
Australian Naval Communication Station at North West Cape in Western Australia,
done at Washington on 16 July 2008
Introduction
2.1
On 5 July 2011, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and
the Government of the United States of America Relating to the Operation of and
Access to an Australian Naval Communication Station at North West Cape in
Western Australia, done at Washington on 16 July 2008, was tabled in the
Commonwealth Parliament.
2.2
The proposed Agreement sets out the terms and conditions for the
maintenance and operation of the Station by Australia, and grants the US access
to and use of the Station, in accordance with the provisions of the proposed
Agreement and technical arrangements agreed between Australia and the US.
Aim of the treaty
2.3
The proposed Agreement is intended to replace the Agreement between
the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the
United States of America relating to the Establishment of the United States
Naval Communications Station in Australia, done at Canberra on 9 May 1963.
2.4
The 1963 Agreement, which was terminated on 8 May 1999, provided for the
establishment, maintenance and operation by the United States (US) of a naval
communication station in Australia.
2.5
The proposed Agreement will remain in force for an initial period of 25
years, and unless terminated, shall continue for subsequent periods of five
years.
Background
The Station
2.6
The Harold E Holt Naval Communication Station at Exmouth in Western
Australia was commissioned in 1967 and became a joint facility in 1974. The
Station provides Very Low Frequency (VLF) communications for US and Australian
submarines. Since 1999, Australia has operated the Station, but the US has
retained full access. The proposed Agreement provides that the Station is
managed in accordance with Australia's policy of full knowledge and
concurrence.[1]
2.7
The Station has four communications channels, of which the US has access
to three. Australia uses the remaining channel for communication with Royal
Australian Navy submarines. The Station covers the Indian Ocean and areas north
of that location.[2]
2.8
Australia has no other VLF transmission facilities, and the Station
operates as part of the global network of VLF stations, most of which are
operated by the US. Together, this global network provides seamless signal
access for submarines across the world’s oceans, including Australian
submarines.[3]
2.9
Operational costs are shared on the basis of access. As the US uses
75 per cent of the Station’s operational capacity, it covers 75 per
cent of its operational costs.[4]
Very Low Frequency Communications
2.10
VLF (3 kHz - 30 kHz) radio transmissions can penetrate several meters
below seawater and are useful for submarine communications when the submarine
cannot surface, but can come close to the surface. The transmissions can be
affected by salinity gradients in the ocean, but these usually do not present
problems for near-surface submarines. There are natural sources of VLF
radiation, but in general, the transmissions are not strongly influenced by
changes in environmental conditions. VLF transmissions are therefore useful
for reliable global submarine communications.
2.11
The transmission antennas need to be large, so it is primarily used for
one-way communications from shore-based command centres to
surface ships and submarines. It can also be used to broadcast to several
satellites at once, which can in turn relay messages to the surface. The US Navy's
VLF systems serve as a back-up for global communication use during hostilities
when nuclear explosions may disrupt higher frequencies or satellites are
destroyed by enemy actions. VLF is also
used for aircraft and vessel navigation beacons and for transmitting standard
frequencies and time signals.[5]
2.12
Despite the age of the Station (44 years), the VLF technology is still
state-of-the-art and will remain an important communications method for future
submarines as it can be used covertly. Notwithstanding the development of
newer communications methods, such as satellite communication, VLF will
continue to remain an important method through which both the US and Australian
navies communicate with their submarines.[6]
Full Knowledge and Concurrence
2.13
Full knowledge and concurrence refers to Australia’s right to know what
activities foreign governments conduct in, through or from Australian territory
or national assets. ‘Full knowledge’ equates to Australia having a full and
detailed understanding of any capability or activity with a presence on
Australian territory or making use of Australian assets. ‘Concurrence’ does
not mean Australia approves every activity or tasking; rather, Australia will
approve the presence of a capability or function in Australia in support of its
mutually agreed goals, based on Australia’s full understanding of that
capability and the uses to which it can be put.[7]
Australia’s interest in accepting the measures
2.14
The proposed Agreement provides for continued access and use of the
Station by the US and, consequently, the means through which VLF communication
for US and Australian submarines may be maintained. According to the
Department of Defence, continuing US access to the Station will help support
the maintenance of a strong and adaptable US presence in the Asia-Pacific
region and is an important indication of the continuing commitment of the US
Government to regional cooperation.
2.15
The Station’s capacity for communicating with submerged submarines in
the Indian Ocean is unique in our region. The Department of Defence argued that
hosting the facility was an important element in enabling Australian use of
other VLF transmitters to communicate with Australian submarines in the Pacific
and Arctic Oceans.[8]
Key obligations
2.16
Article 1 of the proposed Agreement provides that Australia will maintain and operate the Station.
2.17
Article 2 provides that Australia will grant to the United States all
necessary rights of access to and use of the Station throughout the duration of
the proposed Agreement.
2.18
Articles 3 and 4 set out certain conditions relating to access to and
use of the Station.
n paragraph 1 of
Article 3 of the proposed Agreement provides that the two Governments will
consult from time to time on matters connected with the Station and its use;
and
n paragraph 2 of
Article 3 provides that, unless Australia’s express consent is obtained, the
Station will not be used for purposes other than defence communication.
2.19
Article 4 lists three conditions governing access to and use of the
Station. These are:
n that the
communication services of the Station must be available to both Australian and
US armed forces;
n that the cooperating
agencies of the two Governments must mutually determine technical arrangements
for the use of the Station; and
n that the US use of
the Station must accord with Australia’s policy of full knowledge and
concurrence.[9]
Costs
2.20
There are no specific new costs for the Treaty, though some of its articles
require consideration of maintenance and replacement cost for buildings, plant
and equipment at the base.
2.21
Article 9 of the proposed Agreement provides that the cost of operation,
maintenance, alteration and repair of the Station will be shared by the two
Governments. Technical arrangements for cost sharing will be negotiated
between the cooperating agencies as required.
2.22
Article 11 requires Australia to compensate the US for any residual
value of the buildings and equipment constructed or improved by the US at the Station
since 1963 and not removed at the termination of the proposed Agreement. A
proposed Deed of Transfer for Property remains unresolved due to differences
regarding residual value, site environment risks and hazards, and other associated
costs. The Department of Defence advised that discussions over the proposed
Deed of Transfer for Property are continuing.[10]
2.23
The Committee understands that the environmental risks and hazards are
well understood and are being managed.[11]
Nuclear proliferation and disarmament issues
2.24
The Committee notes that the Station is used to communicate with all
types of US Navy submarines, including nuclear armed ballistic missile
submarines,[12] and that there is some
concern in Australia about that aspect of the Station’s operations. The
Australian Anti-Basis Campaign Coalition argued:
North West Cape will be used for naval communications,
especially communications with submarines. Submarines are offensive attack
weapons platforms... In seeking to have North West Cape operational as a US
naval base again, Australia is supporting US plans to bring its nuclear powered
and armed submarines into the Indian Ocean, creating a significant threat
perception among regional powers.[13]
Committee’s inquiry into nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament
2.25
The Committee conducted an extensive inquiry into the issue of nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament in 2009, the results of which were published
in Report 106.[14]
2.26
In that report, the Committee advocated a series of measures be adopted
by the Government to progress nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Of
particular interest in relation to the proposed Agreement currently under
consideration are the Committee’s views on a Nuclear Weapons Convention and the
development of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones.
2.27
In relation to the development of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, the
Committee argued that:
...the Committee considers that Australia should make it
clear to the international community that it pursues all nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament measures with a view to the eventual
negotiation and entry-into-force of a universally adhered to treaty that
achieves the complete abolition of nuclear weapons.[15]
2.28
Nuclear Weapons Free Zones are multilateral treaties enabled by
Article VII of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
A number of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones have been negotiated worldwide. In the
Asia Pacific, three Nuclear Weapon Free Zones have been agreed:
n the South Pacific
Nuclear Free Zone;
n the South East Asian
Nuclear Weapon Free Zone;[16] and
n the Antarctic
Treaty.[17]
2.29
Australia is a signatory to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone and
the Antarctic Treaty, but is not party to the South East Asian
Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. The US is signatory only to the Antarctic
Treaty.[18]
2.30
The Committee strongly supported the use of Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
treaties as a method of furthering the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. In
particular, the Committee recommended (Recommendation11):
...that Australia play a leading role in advocating for full
recognition of a southern hemisphere nuclear weapons free zone...[19]
2.31
This recommendation was supported by the Australian Government.
2.32
Australia’s hosting of the North West Cape submarine communications
base, which communicates with US nuclear armed submarines in the Indian Ocean
and South Asia is not inconsistent with Australia’s commitments under the South
Pacific Nuclear Free Zone treaty and the Antarctic Treaty.
2.33
However, it is the Committee’s view that the proposed Agreement may pose
a conflicting obligation if, at some point in its 25 year life span, a treaty
establishing a southern hemisphere nuclear free zone were to be established.
Conclusion
2.34
The Committee recognises that Australia’s defence relationship with the
United Sates will remain important to Australia’s defence strategy in the
future. The continued cooperation over the use of the Harold E. Holt Naval
Communication Station represents a tangible expression of that defence
relationship.
2.35
The Committee also recognises that the Harold E. Holt Naval
Communication Station is part of an integrated network of communications
stations and that the Australian Navy is reliant upon VLF transmitters
provided by other bases operated by the United States in other countries
to communicate with Australian submarines operating beyond the Indian Ocean
range of this Station. The Committee accepts this is a genuine area of
mutual cooperation in defence activities that assists in meeting the
operational requirements of Australia’s defence forces.
2.36
Notwithstanding continued negotiations on residual value, site
environment risks and hazards, and other associated costs, the financial costs
to Australia are reasonable and manageable – particularly as the US cover 75
per cent of the Station’s operational budget.
2.37
While noting the potential for the proposed Agreement to pose a
conflicting obligation if, at some point in its 25 year life span, a treaty
establishing a southern hemisphere nuclear free zone were to be established,
the Committee does not believe that this hypothetical scenario warrants the
rejection of the proposed Agreement and the potential negative effects to
Australian naval communications that may arise as a result of such a rejection.
2.38
However, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the possible
conflict between the proposed Agreement and any future agreement establishing a
southern hemisphere nuclear free zone. While supporting the proposed
Agreement the Committee also urges the Government to specifically address how
such a possible conflict may be reconciled without in any way diminishing the
Australian Government’s efforts to promote disarmament and the abolition of
nuclear weapons.
Recommendation 1
|
|
The Committee supports Agreement between the Government
of Australia and the Government of the United States of America Relating to
the Operation of and Access to an Australian Naval Communication Station at
North West Cape in Western Australia, done at Washington on 16 July 2008 and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
|
Senator Simon Birmingham
Acting Chair