12th day of August, 2014, then Foreign Minister Julie Bishop ceded Australia's sovereignty to the U.S.

Few people can remember that day, 12th day of August, 2014, when then Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in the Abbott government ceded Australia's sovereignty to the U.S by signing a fateful document in Sydney: "The Force Posture Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America " entered into force as a bilateral Treaty on 31/03/2015.

The FPA should not be read in isolation. To understand its significance you have to read and bear in mind cooperative arrangements established by earlier agreements which are referred to in the FPA.

The combined effect of the agreements is to nullify Australia’s capacity to make independent decisions about war avoidance and war fighting. Together they lock us into providing the United States first with secured areas under its control from which it may conduct a war, and second, with comprehensive logistical support for any such folly.

Australia is in the perfect location from which to wage remote war. Far enough away to be protected from enemy attack but close enough to serve as a staging post for troops and supplies. Big enough that the US can operate freely with minimal oversight and without civilian encroachment. Australia is the stepping stone for waging war with China, a stone to be sacrificed in protecting the US homeland.

We’re functionally dependent on the United States through interoperability and interchangeability and in the technological aspects of modern warfare.

The FPA provides an international legally-recognisable basis for the US presence and its use of facilities here to conduct its war with Australian support.

The FPA undermines Australia’s security, particularly with regard to the capacity to make independent decisions about war avoidance and war fighting. It imposes an obligation on Australia to provide Australian bases and logistical support so the US can conduct war with which Australia might disagree.

With the increased integration and interoperability of our defence forces and our acknowledged dependence on superior US technology, these agreements leave us between the devil and the deep blue sea because we won’t have any substantial independent military capacity.

FPA facilitates a massive arms build up in Australia because it provides for the prepositioning of materiel under the control and for the exclusive use of United States Forces, without specifying types or quantities, and gives the US exclusive use and control over the areas it occupies.

Under the FPA it’s not inconceivable that nuclear weapons could be prepositioned on vessels, aircrafts or on land, without the knowledge of the Australian public. The US simply tells the Department of Defence what’s coming, and if there’s no timely objection it comes.

If land and water is contaminated in or around areas exclusively controlled and used by the United States there is no obligation on the United States for removal and reversion, which is to say to restore the areas to the same condition as when they received them. Australia retains ownership of and responsibility for the land even though the US has exclusive rights of use.

As described in the book ‘Poisoning the Pacific’ by Jon Mitchell, there are many examples of real world consequences of US military presences on foreign soil, from the chemical contamination of water air and soil, poison warfare and biological weapons testing, to nuclear submarines leaking radioactive cobalt-60, all done with impunity.

Daily military operations lead to contamination which poisons civilians and service personnel alike. Solvents and degreasing agents used for cleaning aircraft engines, many of which are carcinogenic, run into the ground; firefighting exercises contaminate water sources with toxic foam; storage tanks leak diesel and fuel. Disposal of hazardous waste and surplus stocks of chemicals is one of the main factors contributing to contamination.

Alarmingly, reference to US “Contractors” is frequently made in the FPA. That is a notable change from earlier agreements.

Some may not realise that the term “US Contractors” does not just apply to say dry cleaners and mechanics providing subsidiary or support services to the forces but includes (and nowadays more commonly means) US Private Military & Security Companies. 

Mercenaries.

The US government has no doubt been forced to employ mercenaries because the United States military is facing its greatest recruitment crisis in 50 years.

When it comes to Treaties and International law the deniability of responsibility for mercenaries has undoubtedly also contributed to their increasing use by the US government in conflicts to pursue geopolitical and economic objectives. It also allows wars to be kept going while minimising domestic public opposition to “boots on the ground”.

We hear much of Russia’s employment of Wagner mercenaries in the Ukraine but the US employment of mercenaries throughout the world is not publicised.

So when we hear official announcements about US troops numbers in Australia under the FPA it is likely that they may not include US mercenaries.

The FPA is an agreement to govern the status of US Forces in Australia. The definition which does not exclude mercenaries is of the “civilian component” of US Forces.

You can see from the Agreed Minutes of Interpretation subscribed to the agreement that the intention was for the “civilian component” provision to extend to organisations like the American Red Cross, for example, but the actual agreement doesn’t say that. Article 1 defines members of the civilian component more generally, and the US and Australian governments would just have to reach agreement about mercenaries being included if any difficult issue arose.

Under the status of forces agreement (SOFA) there would be very few circumstances in which Australia would end up not paying half the cost rectifying any damage that occurs because of the multifactorial nature of causation and because of the increasing interoperability and interchangeability between the ADF and US Defence forces.

Article 13 states that the United States Government shall conform to the provisions of relevant Commonwealth and State laws and regulations, including quarantine laws and industrial awards and determinations, and United States personnel shall observe those laws and regulations.

Which is why Defence now wants to be progressively carved out of such Commonwealth and State laws.

The Statement of Principles between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia (21 November 2013) seems to diplomatically formalise the expansion of military activities through the joint posture agreement.

The Australia – United States Joint Statement of Environmental & Heritage Principles for Combined Activities (18 November 2005) uses the language of hope and good intentions without mentioning obligations.

There is reference to the US and Australia meeting relevant obligations under their respective environmental and heritage legislation and policies and International Conventions but the March 2023 ‘Reforming Defence Legislation to meet Australia’s strategic needs – Consultation paper’ seems to be angling towards legitimising the carve out of Defence activities from any such obligations. If they’re carved out, there’s no obligation. This is particularly important in light of the earlier comments about the daily operations causing contamination, combined with the Consultation paper pressing for ‘ensuring the law allows Defence to train in Australia as close simulation to real-life operations as possible. This can involve the use of the ‘full range of capabilities, incorporating modern technologies…’

The International Conventions mentioned probably do not extend to the actions of mercenaries operating in Australia.

The Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between Australia and the US (27 April 2010), made under the Defence Logistics Agreement, doesn’t solely cover logistics for training exercises. It extends to all the materiel support necessary to wage war from Australian soil.

Article II e in the Definitions section defines logistic support, supplies and services as food, water, billeting, transportation (including airlift), petroleum, oils, lubricants, clothing, communications services, medical services, ammunition, base operations support (and construction incident to base operations support), storage services, use of facilities, training services, spare parts and components, repair and maintenance services, calibration services and port services…

Consider the agreement’s provision for the payment for logistical support being subject to the availability of government funds for such purposes. The US government is already struggling with its debt ceiling and its reserve currency conceals the fact that it is completely broke (with its total public debt standing at a mere $31.46 trillion). Then again, I guess it will be able to set off some of the inordinate debt we’re incurring to it for its weapons of destruction.

The agreement does seem to authorise Australia providing logistical support to US mercenaries as “agents of US military forces” [Article IV 10].

The current definition of logistic support under the CDLSA is: “materiel and services to military forces to enable the successful accomplishment of assigned missions and taskings in situations extending from peacetime to circumstances of conflict involving either or both Parties. Such logistic support may encompass the provision of Defence Articles and Defence Services which means any weapon etc.

It is not clear whether the holding of nuclear weapons in an area over which the US has exclusive control constitutes ‘possession’ for the purposes of the Treaty of Rarotonga. It probably does because under the Treaty “stationing” includes transportation on land or inland waters.

Certainly the Australian government doesn’t believe that American B-52 bombers armed with nuclear warheads ‘rotating’ through Australia would breach treaty obligations. In any case, the Australian public would never be informed whether such aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons under the so-called US policy of “warhead ambiguity” in which it neither confirms nor denies whether any particular military equipment is nuclear-armed. Our politicians accept this notwithstanding its obvious inconsistency with the long-standing policy of ‘full knowledge and concurrence’.

But also consider the Australian territory Cocos (Keeling) Islands which is currently having its runway upgraded to accommodate heavier military planes and conveniently sits in the Indian Ocean, outside the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. It was reported in 2012 that the US military was eyeing off the Cocos Islands as a future Indian Ocean spy base given the impending end of its lease over Diego Garcia. Cocos Keeling Islands conveniently are 2,700 km to the east of Diego Garcia. Sovereignty issues over Diego Garcia create difficulties for the United States. It has been reported that ‘support for nuclear-capable military platforms is a key function of Diego Garcia’ with B-2 nuclear capable heavy bombers frequently visiting the atoll. The extent to which nuclear weapons are stored and stockpiled on Diego Garcia is unclear.

The Cocos Keeling islands being outside the treaty zone might overcome “technical hurdles” to storing nuclear armed weaponry on Australian soil. The US could neither confirm nor deny and Australia strictly could claim to be complying with the Treaty, but if that happened how would it reflect on our integrity with our treaty partners to see us weasel out of our treaty obligations because the zone isn’t accurately drawn to encompass all of Australia?

The Chapeau Defence Agreement seems to ensure that US legal requirements that US forces are deployed properly under enforceable agreements. It seems to exist to satisfy US statutory requirements.

The agreement repeats the definition of logistical support.

The Agreement Concerning Security Measures for the Protection of Classified Information defines classified information as oral, visual, electronic or documentary form or in the form of materiel including equipment or technology.

It states that classified materiel including equipment shall be transported in sealed, covered vehicles, or be securely packaged or protected in order to prevent identification of its details and kept under continuous control to prevent access by unauthorised persons.

Now what might be transported in sealed, covered vehicles so that it can’t be identified?

If the FPA or any of its provisions undermine Australia’s security or freedom of action with regard to armed conflict, what practical steps can be undertaken to mitigate or remove that impact?

On 18 May 2023, Dr Bianca Baggiarini, Lecturer ANU Strategic and Defence Studies, wrote ‘if the region continues the stockpiling of military technologies and capabilities, war becomes more likely’. She refers to the Richard H Kohn definition of militarisation as a process that codes the degree to which a society’s institutions, policies, behaviours, thought and values are devoted to military power and shaped by war. That’s the danger and the challenge. None of us want to be a military-administered colony.

So yesterday, (28th November,2023), The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) issued a media statement as follows: 

• The FPA represents an abrogation of sovereignty
  
  
• The FPA gives the US military unimpeded access to our ports and airfields and the US to station B52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindal
  
  
• The FPA enables the US to launch hostile, military operations from our soil bringing retaliation against the people of Australia

This IPAN petition was to be presented to parliament by Mr Stephen Bates, Member for Brisbane, during the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber on Tuesday 27 November 2023.

IPAN Spokesperson Bevan Ramsden states, ”The petition asks the House of Representatives to urge the Minister for Defence to terminate the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement giving the United States the requisite 12 months advance notice of this intent as required by the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement, Article XXI, paragraph 3.”

He continued, ”The Agreement provides to the United States military unimpeded access to Australia’s ports and airfields and to “Agreed facilities and areas” which are under exclusive US control. These “facilities and areas” include those used for training, pre-positioning of military equipment and other purposes. It represents a serious abrogation of sovereignty”.

The petition states that the Agreement with the United States, signed in 2014:

• provides the legal basis for the stationing of foreign troops on Australian soil including the stationing of 2,500 US Marines each year in Darwin. These troops are under the control of the US Indo-Pacific Command.
  
  
• facilitates the stationing of up to six US B52 bombers at RAAF Tindal, some of which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
  
  
• underpins the basing of nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling in WA from 2027 onwards, posing a serious health risk in the area should radiation leaks occur.
  
  
• could facilitate the launching or support of hostile military actions by the US against other countries in our region which could bring retaliation against the people of Australia. The Agreement should be terminated in order for the Australian government to regain sovereign control of Australian territory and to promote peace in our region.

The e-petition, which was open for only four weeks and received 3,916 signatures.

So, the ALP Federal Government's response? Well, it's is to say, in effect, "if you can't beeat 'em, join 'em." The Indo Pacific region is in the midst of a substantial arms race that Australia is responding to, not fuelling, with its planned acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy said on Tuesday, November 28, 2023.

"The arms race is the greatest its been since 1945, and that is why I reject assertions... that Australia is somehow fuelling that arms race. We are responding to it," he told the National Press Club in a speech drawing parallels with the lead-up to World War Two.

"Conflict is far from inevitable," he said, adding that Australia cannot afford to under-invest in defence. "We must be able to deter conflict before it begins, and certainly before it reaches our shores."

A shake-up of Australia's defence forces has prioritised protecting the continent's northern approaches and sea trade routes, and Australia has boosted military exercises with other nations in Southeast Asia this year, including the first joint patrols with the Philippines in the South China Sea on Saturday, November 25, 2023.

Australia's nuclear-powered submarine fleet will be used for intelligence gathering in peacetime and to strike enemy targets during a war, Mr. Conroy said.

"You don't just defend Australia by stationing pickets around Karratha or off Darwin; you need the ability to hold an adversary at bay and to threaten a potential opponent's assets as far away from Australia as possible," Mr. Conroy said in response to reporters' questions.

In other words, back the Abbott government's 2014 FPA and head off to a distant land to protect the interests of the U.S.

Oh, and by the way, purchase a lot more from the U.S. military industrial complex while we're at it (with taxpayers' funds, of course) and keep the war machine profitable. Because it's not an arms race we're in - it's called defence (a long way from our shores).  

Sir Humphrey Appleby GCB KBE MVO would be proud.

We may be giving up our sovereign capability to the US in our AUKUS legislation, a former Pentagon official who wrote much of America’s defence procurement laws told the ABC, in return for “nothing” except the US stealing and controlling our technology faster. Bill Greenwalt, who is an expert in weapons export regulations, was speaking ahead of Defence Minister Richard Marles putting forward updates to our Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023 29/11/2023 (yesterday) - which is linked to our $368 billion friendship bracelet with the UK and US. Greenwalt also said the legislation would probably stop us from tech collaboration with pals Japan, Korea, France, Germany and other NATO countries not in AUKUS, and The Australian ($) reports it’ll restrict the use of foreign workers in the military tech industry because they’ll require an exemption. Workers from Five Eyes as well as Japan and many European countries won’t need one, however.