Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
missile
nuclear
shield
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Should Australia become involved in the United States missile defence program, 'Son of Star Wars'?
What they said ...
'Although there is no immediate threat, Australia might one day be threatened by missiles that could carry chemical, biological or nuclear warheads'
Australian Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill
'Why should Australia involve itself? As a far-flung island continent, it has the strategic advantage of land and sea expanses that put its major population centres far beyond the range of all but the most sophisticated missile systems'
Tony Parkinson, commentator for The Age
The issue at a glance
On December 3, 2003, it was announced that Australia would join the United States in building a missile defence system. The Australian Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill, stated that he was hopeful Australia would have signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States in relation to a global ballistic missile shield by mid 2004.
The announcement of Australia's probable involvement in the missile defence program appeared to be meet with concern by China, Indonesia and New Zealand. Within Australia the Democrats and the Greens immediately expressed opposition to Australia acquiring the technology. The Labor Party, traditionally opposed to the missile defence shield concept, has been much slower to articulate a position in response to the Government's most recent proposals.
Background
The idea of a missile defence shield received a lot of attention during the 1980s, when then-President Ronald Reagan proposed his Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). SDI called for the deployment of space-based weapons that would shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Its proposed use of lasers and spacecraft led the media and critics to dub the system 'Star Wars'.
The program was not proceeded with on the scale proposed by President Reagan because of American concerns about cost and feasibility, the success of nuclear disarmament programs and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, at that time seen as the greatest threat to American security. However, research, development and deployment of missile intercept systems of a more limited nature continued.
In 1991, President George Bush (Senior) called for a revised missile-defence system that would use ground-based rocket interceptors. In that same year, the world saw the first engagement of a ballistic missile and a missile defence system during the Gulf War, when an American Patriot missile destroyed an Iraqi Scud missile. Bush's plans laid the groundwork for the system now being backed by his son, George W. Bush.
In 1998, a congressional commission released the Rumsfeld Report, which stated that several countries would have the ability to strike the United States mainland within five to 10 years. Six weeks after the report was released, North Korea tested a three-stage missile that passed over Japan. The North Korean testing led the United States Congress to pass the National Missile Defence Act of 1999, which committed the United States to establishing a missile-defence shield. NMD is projected to be operational by 2005. This new program has been popularly referred to as 'Son of Star Wars'.
Australia's involvement in missile defence
The joint Australia-United States defence base at Pine Gap serves as a ground station for the United States Defence Support Program early warning satellites, replacing the older facility at Nurrungar. The Nurrungar facility was used in the 1991 Gulf War for early warning of Scud missile launches.
In 2003 Australia commissioned a National Security Review which concluded, among other things, that 'The threat of direct military attack on Australia is less than it was in 2000, but geography does not protect Australia from rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles or from terrorism'.
The report noted the following in relation to missile defence, 'The events of September 2001, North Korea's current brinkmanship, and concerns over Iraq's capabilities have reinforced the resolve of the US to push ahead with establishing an effective missile defence system.
Given the prospect of the ADF operating more often with our allies and friends in regions under threat of WMD delivered by ballistic missiles, Australia supports the development of effective missile defences to protect deployed military units.
In relation to strategic missile defence, the US is looking to involve its allies and this will be an increasingly important priority in the twenty-first century. We are continuing our close dialogue with the US on missile defence, particularly given our close cooperation on Ballistic Missile Early Warning.'
The Howard Government signed up for theatre missile defence when it announced on November 7 2003 that work would start on three new air-warfare destroyers by 2006.
Internet Information
The science information site, How Stuff Works, supplies a clear and detailed account of the operation of missile defence systems. It also puts the current 'Son of Star Wars' program into its historical context, clearly outlining earlier proposals from which it has derived.
This site can be found at http://people.howstuffworks.com/missile-defense.htm
In February 2003 Australia's Defence Minister, Senator Hill, produced a press release reviewing Australia's defence priorities. Australia's defence priorities, including a foreshadowing of developments which would justify our involvement in a missile defence program are outlined in this document.
The media release can be found at http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=2378
On February 21 2002 ABC's Catalyst program interviewed a number of prominent physicists who gave their views on the operation of and likely effectiveness of a missile defence program.
The transcript of these interviews can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s478712.htm#transcript
On August 2, 2000, The British newspaper The Guardian published an article by Dr Hannah Middleton titled, 'Putting Australia and the World at Risk:
US National Missile Defence'
The piece is a strong, detailed criticism of the negative implications for Australia and the world of Australia becoming involved in the United States National Missile Defence program. It can be found at http://www.zipworld.com.au/~cpa/garchve2/1011nmd.html
On January 14 2004 The Washington Post published a report by Tom Carter titled, 'Two join missile defense program'. It is an account of Australia and India's intention to join the United States missile defence program. It includes a justification of Australia's involvement from Defence Minister Robert Hill.
The report can be found at http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040113-085237-2800r.htm
Arguments in favour of Australia becoming involved in the United States missile defence program
1. Involvement in the program is an insurance policy for Australia's security future
Australia's Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill, has claimed, 'With the proliferation of long-range missiles and trends towards proliferation of mass destruction warheads, it is a sensible decision for Australia to take.'
Senator Hill acknowledged that there was 'no immediate threat' to Australia's security, but argued that involvement in the missile defence program was an investment in Australia's security future.
'Although there is no immediate threat, Australia might one day be threatened by missiles that could carry chemical, biological or nuclear warheads,' Senator Hill said.
'The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened by long-range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that investment in defensive measures is important.'
Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, stressed the potential threats facing Australia. Mr Downer stated, 'There are several countries in unstable regions that are developing longer range and sophisticated ballistic missile systems and in some cases they would have a weapons of mass destruction capability.'
The United States ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, has specifically claimed that North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles illustrated the need for a missile shield.
The Australian Government has also named North Korea as a 'rogue state' that may sometime in the future develop the ability to launch long-range missile attacks against the United States or Australia.
In February, 2003, when there was early speculation about Australia's possible interest in the revamped Star Wars project, the Australian Prime, Mr Howard, said, 'Our first responsibility is to investigate ways of protecting Australia against dangerous behaviour by North Korea.'
2. It is a defence program and therefore should not antagonise other nations
It has been claimed that the missile defence shield should not alarm Australia's neighbours, as it is not an offensive program. Its aim is not to attack others but to frustrate any attempts that might be made to use ballistic missiles against the United States, Australia or Japan.
The Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has said, 'This missile defence system or so-called "Son of Star Wars", it's not an offensive thing, it's a defensive thing, that's the goal.'
It has further been claimed that Australia had been careful to explain to China that Australian involvement in the Star Wars program was not a challenge to China.
Australia's Defence Minister Senator Robert Hill has claimed, 'The Chinese are pragmatic and quite sensible. They obviously don't want to see acts that encourage an arms race, but they do understand the rationale for defensive mechanisms.'
Senator Hill has made similar claims about Indonesia's attitude to Australia's involvement in the missile defence program. Senator Hill has claimed, 'The Indonesian government understands what we're doing and respects our interest to plan for the future protection of Australia ... It's a defensive move; there's nothing offensive about it at all and it doesn't come into effect unless someone fires a missile at you.'
3. The American alliance is crucial to Australia's defence
It has been claimed that Australia's involvement in the Star wars program will further strengthen our alliance with the United States, an alliance that is of vital importance to Australia's defence.
It has been suggested that Australian involvement in this scheme would help to make us a pivotal element in the detection of incoming missiles launched against the United States and that this would enhance the ties that exist between Australia and the United States. Australia was invited to join the program by the Bush administration.
4. The Government is attempting to limit the expenditure involved
The missile defence shield capability being developed by the United States would provide a protective umbrella from hostile missile attack over the United States mainland.
The Howard Government has so far opted for a more affordable version of the program known as Theatre Missile Defence, which involves arming a future generation of navy warships with interceptor missiles to provide an umbrella over Australia's deployed forces.
The Minister for Defence, Senator Hill, has stated, 'We have an opportunity to get in in the least expensive way and that's one of the advantages of our alliance (with the United States).'
It has further been claimed that Australia's level of involvement in the Star Wars program can largely be accommodated with relatively minor alterations to acquisitions that have already been planned for.
The Minister for Defence, Senator Hill has stressed, 'We haven't committed to any new costs ... much of our recent [defence] acquisition program really can contribute to this outcome.'
5. Committing to the program now could have domestic political advantages for the Government
It has been suggested that announcing Australia's involvement in the missile defence program when it did was intended to have political advantages for the Howard Government. Two factors have been suggested as influencing the timing of the announcement.
Australia will be having a federal election in 2004 and the Opposition elected a new leader, Mark Latham, toward the end of 2003. An editorial published in The Age on December 8, 2003, stated, 'The timing of the announcement suggests ... that the Government may be as concerned by the threat posed by the new Opposition Leader as it is by the aggressive acts of unnamed rogue states down the track.'
The Government sees its policy decisions on homeland security as a strength in any electoral contest. It has generally attempted to paint the Opposition as 'weak on security'. As The Age editorial notes of December 8, 'Labor has been opposed to the missile defence program in the past and has pledged that a Labor Government would not be involved in testing or developing the new system.'
This policy position creates two problems for the new Labor leader. If Mark Latham accepts his party's traditional policy on missile defence and rejects Australia's involvement in the new project, this would allow the Government to go into the 2004 election claiming that the Labor Party is not interested in defending Australia. If, on the other hand, Mr Latham attempts to change Labor policy, he will face strong opposition from the Labor Left faction. This will enable the Government to go into the election claiming that Mark Latham is a weak leader who cannot control his party.
Arguments against Australia becoming involved in the United States missile defence program
1. Australia is under no threat that would justify involvement in the program
It has been claimed that Australia faces no immediate threat that would give us any reason to become involved in a missile defence program. In an article published in The Age on December 5, 2003, Tony Parkinson wrote, 'Why should Australia involve itself? As a far-flung island continent, it has the strategic advantage of land and sea expanses that put its major population centres far beyond the range of all but the most sophisticated missile systems.'
It has further been noted that without a specific enemy in mind, it is difficult to determine the probable utility of a particular defence strategy or program. John Pike of the Global Security Network has made this point. Mr Pike has said, 'Unless you can say who you are going to be fighting, you don't know whether the weapon you bought is going to be useful.'
It has further been suggested that even the United States appears to be under no immediate threat of missile attack from another nation.
In a letter published in The Age on December 6, 2003, Evert de Graauw asked, 'Why would North Korea, for instance, with two nuclear warheads and rockets that cannot reach the US mainland, attack the US, which is armed with 10,000 nuclear warheads and several thousand ICMs? No one doubts that the US, in its present mood, would absolutely annihilate any nation that dared attack it in this way. Why would any 'rogue state' even consider using missiles against such a foe?'
2. Involvement in the program will damage our relations with other nations
Critics of the missile defence shield have been concerned that by signing up, Australia risks damaging our relationships with other nations in the region, especially China. China has already objected to Australia's involvement in the scheme, warning that it could spark a new arms race. China is also concerned that the technology could be used to protect Taiwan. A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry has claimed that missile defence will damage non-proliferation efforts. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's defence analyst Aldo Borgu has claimed that China would 'very much see this as aimed at them'. Mr Borgu further commented, 'China is certainly concerned about being hemmed in by the US on missile defence. And with Australia and Japan both signing up, China would be very much concerned that this policy is about the containment of China.'
Indonesia, too, has expressed reservations about the program's potential to upset the power balance in the region. Djoko Susilo, a member of the Indonesian parliament's commission for security, defence and foreign affairs, has claimed that Australia's consideration of air warfare destroyers capable of shooting down ballistic missiles in space was an aggressive move.
New Zealand has also been highly critical of Australia's involvement. The New Zealand Foreign Minister, Mr Phil Goff, has said, 'making the world safe from nuclear weapons is best achieved by eliminating nuclear weapons, not by finding new ways to intercept them.'
Many believe that participation in this project will make Australian defence and communications sites (such as Pine Gap) 'first-strike' targets in the event of any future nuclear war, as well as decrease our standing on all international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It could also jeopardise our economic and diplomatic relations with countries such as France who are opposed, on principle, to the development of the project.
3. The program is hugely expensive
To this point the United States has invested some $100billion in the project. The Japanese Government is expected to invest $1.2billion into SM3 technology in 2004. Though the extent of Australia's financial commitment to the 'son of Star Wars' program has yet to be revealed, critics have stressed that the probable expense will be very large. Ron Huisken of the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre has stated that he could not imagine a specific enough threat to justify Australia spending the 'gargantuan amount' needed to develop a missile shield.
It has also been claimed that such a use of taxpayers' money makes it impossible for the Government to adequate fund important areas of domestic expenditure. In a letter published in The Age on December 6, 2003, Shayne Davison wrote, 'For the Government to say we cannot afford a decent health care or education system, and then spend our money willy-nilly on illegal wars and airy-fairy missile defence systems, is ludicrous.'
Finally it has been suggested that if either Australia or the United States were to use the money devoted to the Star Wars program to reduce world poverty, this would do a great deal to address the causes of terrorism.
In a letter published in the Age on December 8, 2003, Evert de Graauw speculated, 'One is left wondering how much the use of $US100 billion to alleviate food shortages and disease around the globe would do to remove the scourge of terrorism.'
4. Australia has different defence priorities
It has been claimed that if Australia goes ahead with what is likely to be a very large investment in missile defence technology, then there will not be enough of our a military budget left to make purchases that better serve Australia's defence interests.
Chris Evans, Labor's defence spokesperson, has asked, 'What's Australia's national interest in [this project]? What's the rationale, and what are the competing priorities for expenditure?'
Ron Huisken of the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre has made a similar point. Mr Huisken has claimed that the missile defence program could make Australia subservient to the United States' national interest and would either require a budget increase for defence or trade-offs between military spending priorities.
5. Technologically, the program is unlikely to be successful
The project has been widely criticised for its impracticality. There are many who say that technologically 'son of Star Wars' is simply not feasible.
One such critic is Dr George Legge, principal fellow, school of physics, University of Melbourne. In a letter published in The Age on December 6, 2003, Dr Legge wrote, 'The technology needed for this system has to be developed by physicists and engineers, mostly in the United States.
So many physicists, there and elsewhere, expressed strong opinions that such a defence system could never work in practice that the American Physical Society established a committee of physicists and engineers to investigate the scientific and technological requirements.
Their interim report in 2000 was unfavourable. The final report appeared in July, together with a press announcement that a missile defence strategy was not feasible against potential threats.'
The same point was made in another letter published in The Age on December 6, 2003. The writer, Joe Loss, is an Australian citizen currently living in the United States. Mr Loss wrote, 'Many experts are sceptical that developing the technology for missiles to reliably intercept other missiles is even possible.'
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's defence analyst Aldo Borgu has also claimed, 'It doesn't make sense to invest at the moment because we are still not sure how well it will work.'
Further implications
Australia's involvement in the United States missile defence program seems a foredrawn conclusion. In January 2004 Australia's Defence Minister Senator Robert Hill declared, 'It is in Australia's national interest to play a part ... We are working with the Americans at the moment to set up a framework for our involvement. ... We will hopefully have a memorandum of understanding a little later this year.'
Australia has already announced plans to purchase three air warfare class destroyers, which could be integrated into a future missile defence shield while current American reliance on Pine Gap facilities ensures that at least in the short to medium term the United States will expect Australia to play a part in supporting the missile defence program.
It has also to be noted that Australia seems to have placed uncritical faith in the likely success of this program. Senator Hill has noted how impressed he was with the December 2003 successful firing of a Standard Missile-3 interceptor missile from a U.S. Aegis cruiser that knocked a target out of the sky.
Senator Hill has been reported as having said, 'You know a few years ago very sound scientists were saying you know this is still decades away. And already in trials now we are seeing intercepts in really quite extraordinary circumstances.'
A change in Government at the next election would do nothing to free Australia from its effective obligation to continue to make its Pine Gap and other facilities available to the United States. The extent to which Australia is likely to continue to purchase military hardware that can be incorporated into the missile defence system is likely to be checked only by the cost of such involvement.
It remains to be seen whether the technology will achieve the level of success its supporters hope for. Unfortunately it also remains to be seen whether it will spark a new arms race in which countries such as China ultimately come to believe that they must develop missiles that can circumvent such defence systems.
Sources
The Age
5/12/03 page 1, news item by Mark Forbes, 'Australia signs up for "star wars"'
5/12/03 page 4, comment by Tony Parkinson, 'An early test for new leader'
6/12/03 page 10, letter from Dr George Legge, 'The experts say no to star wars'
6/12/03 page 10, letter from Shayne Davison, 'Let the people decide, Mr Howard'
6/12/03 page 10, letter from Joe Loss, 'Why are we following US folly?'
6/12/03 page 10, cartoon by Petty
8/12/03 page 10, editorial, 'Revisiting the dream of Star Wars'
8/12/03 page 10, letter from Ben Zala, 'Star Wars: do not go gentle into this "good" night'
8/12/03 page 10, letter from Evert de Graauw, 'Not the best way to spend $US100b'
8/12/03 page 10, letter from Siddarth Prakash, 'Futile exercise'
8/12/03 page 10, letter from Peter Rutherford, 'Dumb and dumber'
8/12/03 page 10, letter from Vincent Zankin, 'The Pine Gap factor'
9/12/03 page 10, letter from Bill James, 'Knee-jerk response to star wars plan'
The Australian
5/12/03 page 1, news item by Steve lewis, 'Canberra signs on to missile defence'
6/12/03 page 1, news item by Cameron Stewart, 'New plan for cruise missiles'
10/02/04 page 2, news item by John Kerin, `Shield "won't start arms race'
23/01/04 page 13, comment by Michael Costello, `There is no missile defence, only perils'
27/01/04, page 11, comment by Carl Ungerer, `ALP must get behind US shield'
The Herald Sun
5/12/03 page 1, news item by I McPhedran, 'We're in Star Wars'
5/12/03 page 4, news item by Alison Rehn, 'Critics warn of new arms race'
5/12/03 page 4, comment by Ian McPhedran, 'Untried project boosts risks'