Hi Pete. I hope you didn't infer "prejudiced personal abuse" from my previous assessment of your text. I did not intend such, but merely offered critical feedback interpreting the overall effect of your statements which, if considered with detachment, suggest some prima facie high value in secrets and secrecy, and similarly prima facie credibility in Australia's intelligence community thereby.

Anyway, those two paras of the link you pasted:

"The Defence Department and the US Navy signed a classified memorandum of understanding setting out the governing arrangements for the station in November last year.

The conclusion of a secret memorandum of understanding rather than a formal treaty means the agreement has not been reviewed by Federal Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Mr Fitzgibbon has said the ground station will be operational by 2011."

Now, where is the diplo or other ruckus in the above statements? The matter of "formal treaty" should easily cover - even pre-empt - a separate, non-reviewable, classified MoU under ANZUS.

Onto "a series of leaks to the media about a powerful pro-Indonesia bias in Australia’s military intelligence and foreign affairs establishment".

With hindsight it is much clearer that this issue suffers exaggeration and other misleading distortion. I have no doubt Australia's government circles were penetrated thoroughly by "Indonesian agents", probably starting as early as the late '60s. However, that situation must be viewed in the context of prevailing strategic and ideological conditions, which so muddied the waters that definitions of “Indonesian agent” need careful qualification – not a simplistic label of nationality. Soeharto's regime was not only so corrupted by itself, but also by its non-Indonesian ideological patrons. Therefore, would Soeharto-era CIA-, MI6- or Kissinger-mentored ideologues meet definitions of “Indonesian agent” (Ali Murtopo is an interesting case there)? The same greyness applies to architects of East Timor's 1975 invasion and 1999 sacking.

This past decade, Indonesia has made breaks with its prolonged subordination to Soehartoist practice. Such effort involves state institutions conducting themselves more in Indonesia's national interest. Apparent immunity for Soehartoist criminals often points to those western states of their virtual exile.

mil-observer

The main reason for official anger may be that Philip is able to paint a systematic picture of Australia's intelligence relations with the US. This would anger the US sigint body (NSA) which would express displeasure to Australia’s Defence Signals Directorate (DSD). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Concerning domestic sensitivities in “US spy base to be built in WA” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/us-spy-base-to-be-built-in-wa/790453.aspx Philip makes the insightful observation:

“The conclusion of a secret memorandum of understanding rather than a formal treaty means the agreement has not been reviewed by Federal Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.”

The timing of the Howard Government’s announcement of the MoU, on 8 November 2008 http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7242, just 2 weeks before the Federal Election, on 24 November 2007, is interesting.

I get the impression that the approval process for the latest Geraldton signals facility was rushed through to avoid the scrutiny of imminently incoming Labor rank and file Parliamentarians - particularly those (as Philip flags) on Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

Rudd and other senior Labor leaders may have had no problems with a significant new US signals facility in Australia but the risk to Howard and Rudd was that members of the Labor Left and Greens would express their democratic right to holdup and cause public airing of any US-Australian Treaty on this matter.

--

Aggravation of Australia’s intelligence relations with the US may also be at the heart of anger over Philip’s “Revealed: our spy targets” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/political/revealed-our-spy-targets/789537.aspx of June 13 2008.

The UKUSA Security Agreement concerns “an alliance of Anglosphere countries for the purpose of sharing intelligence [between] Australia, Canada, NZ, UK and the US." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK-USA_Security_Agreement. According to wikipedia “US Monitors most of...Asia."

Hence it is possible that much of the information in “Revealed: our spy targets” originated from the US. The US does not like to see its information leaked – one of the reasons the Chifley Labor Government created ASIO.

So the US may be pressuring the Australian Government to keep US secrets secure by in turn pressuring Mr Dorling and, more broadly, intimidating the wider Australian media.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Pete,

I think you'll find that UKUSA ensures the approval and continuation of facilities like Geraldton regardless. I haven't seen or heard of a single ALP lower or upper houser who has any serious notion of opposing UKUSA and thereby jeopardizing relationships with the big daddy NSA and others. As far as I can tell, UKUSA would be like pregnancy: even the occasional committee dithering is just not good diplo or defence form in a network of that nature!

Yeah, I have other takes on the Dorling case. I think the hype around 1999 East Timor-related leaks was similarly odd; I can only take serious notice of particular cases of such matters when they involve prosecution, detention, accidents, deaths, etc.