Manus naval base – the best laid plans of imperialist mice and men…..

Written by: (Contributed) on 21 July 2020

(Above: PNG newspaper photo from 2019 directed at former PM O'Neill)

Problems have arisen with the upgrade of the US-led military plan for Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island which were to be front-line facilities for regional operations.

Diplomatic officials from Canberra and Washington did not follow appropriate and accepted procedures during the initial stages of implementing the military planning. Their behaviour, correspondingly, has revealed a callous indifference and disrespect toward the peoples of Papua New Guinea.

In mid-July a statement from the Governor of Manus Island, Charlie Benjamin, backed by the Limondorol ethnic group, announced they were blocking the proposed upgrade of Lombrum Naval Base. The surrounding area is regarded as their customary land, and they were not consulted about the US-led military planning. (1) The statement was timed to coincide with the start of construction work at the site. The fact that local firms were excluded from the tender process had added to the opposition to the project.

The announcement met with noted diplomatic silence from both Australia and the US; a reference was eventually forthcoming whereby the Trump administration urged the Morrison coalition government in Canberra to 'quickly resolve the matter'. (2)

The US-led military plan for the Lombrum facilities was originally announced in November, 2018, by vice-president Mike Pence as part of the 'Pacific step-up' to counter China at an APEC Summit in Port Moresby. (3) In his speech to the regional trade forum Pence stated the US would partner Australia with the planned $175 million upgrade, to enable the facilities to 'provide great advantage in both offence and defence in wartime' and 'sea-lines of communication (SLOC)'. (4)

Manus Island was regarded as strategically important for facing the open seas to offer multiple lines for military operations, and 'positional military advantage could be leveraged to support operations in the western Pacific'. (5) It also has deep-water channels, to accommodate larger-size naval vessels. Reference was also made at the time to the nearby Momote air-field which would provide 'additional lines of operation'. (6)

The fact the Trump administration has appointed an ambassador specifically for PNG has revealed the importance attached to the Lombrum Naval Base initiative. The US, historically, always used diplomatic personnel based in Canberra for duties in the South Pacific.

No doubt the Manus Islanders would like to be flies on the wall when Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds fly to Washington for annual talks with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Mark Esper. So too, for that matter, would many Australians sick to death of Australian servility to the US overlords.

Strategic importance of Manus Island

US-led military planning for the Lombrum facilities has been based on a strategic triangle with the arc from Brisbane to Guam and the Philippines. (7) The triangular relationship also fits inside the second and third layers of island chains (see diagram). Military facilities near Brisbane are already used for the recently established Australian Defence Force (ADF) Pacific Support Team as part of the Army's 1st Division. (8) Guam is a major US military facility in Micronesia. The Philippines, likewise, has had long-standing US military commitments; in recent times a number of sensitive US military facilities have been reactivated at:

                                        Basa Air-base, Pampagna,
                                        Antonio Bautista Air-base, Palawan,
                                        Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija,
                                        Lumbia Air-base, Cagayan de Oro City,
                                        Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air-base, Cebu City. (9)

Manus Island is strategically situated approximately mid-way on a straight-line between the ADF military facilities in Brisbane and their US counterparts based in Guam using a standard actual-size regional map. It is, therefore, revealing to note the US-led military plan to develop the Lombrum facilities was taken on the basis that 'Manus … was … safer than Guam from enemy attacks', leaving little to the imagination about the nature of the extensive plan. (10) It is, furthermore, also important to note opposition to the planned upgrade by local people on Manus Island was because 'the base could become a major military outpost like that in Okinawa, Japan'. (11) It was not idle speculation but a realistic consideration.

Behind the scenes of the major stand-off between local people on Manus Island and the US war-machine lies a very important factor which would appear to have been overlooked by decision-makers in Canberra and Washington; PNG has two legal and political systems. The Australian colonial administration and British Commonwealth established a full Westminster-model of parliamentary democracy in Port Moresby prior to independence in the mid-1970s. The model constitution, however, rested upon older traditional Melanesian law, practised by ethnic groups for thousands of years through democratic processes of consultation and discussion amongst collective peoples with decision-making by tribal elders. Their custodianship of lands and property was regarded as the basis of their entire legal and political system.

Military and government officials in both Canberra and Washington, it should be noted, did not even bother to consider Melanesian law when planning the Lombrum upgrade, revealing a total disrespect for the peoples of PNG in a manner reminiscent of neo-colonial control of another country. The fact the US-led military planning has appeared to have placed the peoples of Manus Island and PNG in the front-line of real-war scenarios without even bothering to consult with local people is a disgrace.

With this type of diplomacy taking place in the name of Australian values:

                                            We need an independent foreign policy!
........

NOTE: Messages of support for Governor Charlie Benjamin and the Limondorol people should be forwarded / emailed to the PNG High Commission, Canberra: kunducbr@ hotkey.net.au

1.     Manus clan threatens naval base deal, Australian, 17 July 2020.   
2.     Ibid.
3.     Australia must take threat, The Strategist, ASPI., 15 June 2020.
4.     The Strategic Significance of Manus Island for the US Navy, The US Naval Institute, December 2018; and, Joint Initiative at Lombrum Naval Base, Defence Strategic Policy and Intelligence Group, Department of Defence, Australia.
5.     Ibid., The Strategic Significance of Manus Island for the US Navy.
6.     Ibid.
7.     Ibid.
8.     ADF could open doors to Pacific military elites, Australian, 22 October 2019.
9.     Tightening Philippine military involvement with the US, The Philippine Star, 5 May 2018.
10.   Strategic Significance of Manus Island, op.cit., December 2018.
11.   Australian, op.cit., 17 July 2020.

Korea, Guam and Manus Island: US adjusts to manage its declining power

Contributed on 5 December 2019 

The speed by which the Pentagon demanded a major South Korean (Republic of Korea) media outlet retract a statement that the US was considering a troop withdrawal from the country has shown sensitivities surrounding issues on the Korean peninsula.

US imperialism has long had its troops stationed in the ROK as part of the so-called Defence of Japan doctrine and for rapid deployment elsewhere.

The rise of China in recent decades, however, has had a dramatic effect on the Korean peninsula; the old balance of forces is changing, and the US is increasingly being forced back onto defensive positions.

It is also interesting to note, therefore, US foreign policy commitments toward Guam, situated in less sensitive surroundings than the Korean peninsula.

US demands ROK pay to “host” its troops

On 14 November the Chosun Ilbo, one of the ROK's most prestigious media outlets, published an article which included a warning from US General Mark Milley, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, questioning the role of the US in the ROK and the costs involved in maintaining nearly 30,000 troops in the country. (1) The article also included reference to the US considering a troop withdrawal from the country. 

Three days before the Chosun Ilbo publication, the US officially announced it was postponing a major air force joint exercise with the ROK involving sixty aircraft as part of diplomatic initiatives with the northern DPRK. (2)

The following week, high-level diplomatic talks between the two countries failed to resolve a US request that the ROK increase its defence budget five-fold for payment for US troops in the South. The ROK, at present, pays about $1 billion a year; the Trump administration wanted to increase the amount to $5 billion. (3) It followed a similar request made last July that Japan ‘pay roughly four times as much per year to offset the costs of stationing more than 50,000 U.S. troops there (foreignpolicy.com Nov 15, 2019).

While other media outlets also provided further information about the tense stand-off between the US and the ROK, an official announcement from the Pentagon denied the Chosun Ilbo report and demanded it be withdrawn immediately. (4) Later reference to a diplomatic figure in Washington being the source of the information quoted by Chosun Ilbo would tend to indicate that the content of the article, nevertheless, was correct. (5) The article, furthermore, also specified 'the potential reduction of a brigade had already been discussed with top brass of US forces in South Korea'. (6) 

Behind the scenes in Washington and the Pentagon there is every reason to believe the US is considering a partial withdrawal of troops very soon, following discussion about the matter dating back to 2017. During the early period of the Trump administration a Korean media outlet claimed the US was considering a troop withdrawal as part of an agenda to engage the northern DPRK in high-level diplomatic initiatives. (7) The following year, after initial diplomatic talks with the DPRK, a US-based media outlet actually reported Trump wanted to reduce the number of troops in the ROK. (8)

China’s challenge to US sphere of influence

A number of related factors, however, come into play:

*          The large US troop presence in the ROK has, historically, been part of the Defence of Japan doctrine intended for rapid regional deployment. The US has also maintained about 49,000 troops based in Japan as part of the same military planning. Recent moves by the Trump administration, therefore, have revealed just how dysfunctional the White House has become with the president relying upon advisors and others who appear amateurish and possessing questionable levels of competence when dealing with matters of state. While the official Defence Department position on levels of troops in the ROK was 'to maintain stability in North-east Asia', Trump has stated the US demand for increased payment for the troops was '$US 5 billion worth of protection', inferring changed military planning away from deployment to defence. (9)

*          The rapid rise of China has affected the balance of forces across the region; traditional positions of domination and control have been challenged by an economic competitor. The fact China has become the major trading partner with both the ROK and DPRK has shown the development of a successful three-way diplomatic relationship where the US is being forced out of what it has considered to be its sphere of influence. The uncomfortable position the US has found itself in was noted following the Pentagon using ROK military facilities to host a THAAD radar system in 2018, which was noted as possessing the range 'which can see into China'. (10) An informal trade embargo imposed by Beijing was noted on lines of creating a 'diplomatic chill' which 'affected ROK businesses'. (11)

 *         The ROK is also a country which has slowly come of age; presidents in the Blue House are no longer sycophantic clients of the White House and Pentagon, acting on endless streams of directives designed to serve 'US interests'.  

The outcome of the factors appears to be a changed US foreign policy position where they are attempting to slowly edge their way out of a possible confrontation and escalation of hostilities on the Korean peninsula. The US appears to be seeking options which include better value for financial outlay with troop presence in the region, in another, more accommodating regional position.

US upgrading Guam war base

During the period of the Obama presidency and regional military planning which included the 'pivot' position toward China, an allocation of $309 million was provided for Guam in Micronesia. The defence budget was largely allocated for construction of new military facilities as part of a much larger amount estimated at $8.7 billion. (12) Whether Trump wanted the ROK to pay an increased amount for hosting US troops to cover costs involved with budget allocations for Guam has yet to be established, although it would appear highly likely.

Recent US defence budgets with allocations specifically for Guam have included:

                                                $326 - $354 million in 2018;
                                                $448.5 million in 2019;
                                                $400 million proposed for 2020. (13)
A number of important factors have to be considered when studying Guam.

The small Pacific country has remained part of US territory, and is a client state. It is strategically positioned south of Japan between 140-150 degrees east; and it rests upon the same arc as US intelligence facilities based at Pine Gap, Central Australia, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. (14) Both Diego Garcia and Guam, have, in recent times, been transformed into military hubs specifically designed for operations with Darwin Harbour in northern Australia as a support centre.

It is not particularly difficult to establish the military position allocated for Australia and Guam within wider regional military planning.

Coinciding with the initial diplomatic discussions about possible troop withdrawals from the ROK, the US used facilities on Guam to host MQ-4C Tritons, together with existing RQ-4 Global Hawks. (15) The US defence department later announced the two MQ-4C Tritons used for regional surveillance would be operational from Guam by December, 2018, with an accompanying Signals Intelligence facility operational by 2021. (16) There has been little ambiguity in the designated role of Australia as a regional hub for the US military planning.

US plans for Manus Island

In an official Australian military publication, it was noted that the Signals Intelligence facilities were intended for coverage of the South China Seas, and, while 'it remains unclear whether refurbishments at Manus Island include upgrades to support Tritons', the fact Japan, Guam and Manus Island all exist within 140-150 degrees east on an actual size world map, which also includes sensitive military installations in northern Australia, provide some considerable evidence of the strategic location of the PNG-based Lombrum facilities. (17)

It is also significant to note the stated range of the MQ-4C Tritons based on Guam, at 8,200 miles, provide an arc which swings through Taiwan in the north, with the Lombrum military facilities on Manus Island. (18)

While initial media releases for the Lombrum base made extensive use of military jargon to obscure scrutiny, it was eventually established that the planning was US-led with Australia footing the bill for a $5 million contract for the upgrade last year with the Fletcher Morobe Constructions Limited. (19) The timing of the upgrading of the military facilities coincided with similar developments on Guam with the planned siting of the MQW-4C Tritons. 

A further official media release, at the same time, also noted the nearby Momote airfield at Manus 'would be a valuable base.....for surveillance aircraft'. (20) The same media release also divulged the Lombrum facilities were being planned 'to support American naval units as the US is interested in examining locations to support operations in the Pacific', which was followed with a reference to 'negotiations.....opened up now between Australia, the US and PNG regarding access to Manus as a forward operating base'. (21)

Northern Australian military facilities have also been included within Pentagon military planning for US troop rotations for regional deployments, resting on endless military exercises and computer simulations for real-war scenarios.

We need an independent foreign policy!

    

1.     US Congressional leader dismisses troop pull-out talk, The Chosun Ilbo (ROK), 14 November 2019.

2.     S Korea, US shelve military exercise, Australian, 18 November 2019.

3.     US 'threatens to pull troops from S Korea', Australian, 22 November 2019.

4.     Pentagon riled, The Washington Examiner, 21 November 2019.

5.     Australian, op.cit., 22 November 2019.

6.     Ibid.

7.     Sim hints that US troop withdrawal could be on agenda for dialogue with North Korea, The Korean Herald, 27 April 2017.

8.     Trump reportedly wants to reduce number of US troops in South Korea, CNN, 4 May 2018, following an earlier article in the New York Times.

9.     Ibid; and, Australian, op.cit., 22 November 2019.

10.   CNN, ibid., 4 May 2018.

11.   Ibid.

12.   US military gearing up on Guam, Defence Industry Daily (U.S.), 4 December 2015.

13.   Senate's defence budget, The Pacific Daily News, 19 June 2018; and, Trump signs $717 billion defence law, The Pacific Daily News, 15 August 2018; and, Trump 2020 defence spending plan, The Pacific Daily News, 12 June 2019.

14.   Map of the World, Peters Projection, Actual Size, Scale, 1:1,230,000,000.        

15.   New Drones, The Guam Daily Post, 27 November 2017.

16.   US Navy deploying, The Diplomat, 12 April 2018.

17.   US Tritons head to Guam, Australian Defence Magazine, 25 September 2019.

18.   Diplomat, op.cit., 12 April 2018; and, Map of the World, Peters Projection, op.cit.

19.   The Weekend Australian, 22-23 September 2018.

20.   Benefits for all in Manus being a base for US and Australian forces, Australian, 29 August 2018.

21.   Ibid.