In light of a recent BBC article excerpted above, I was wondering 1) what formalities are normally observed respecting the sovereignty of the host country, and 2) in what ways can cooperation be withdrawn to make things difficult for the foreign base, as the relationship with the basing country becomes more adverse?
This is a general question, so feel free to cite specifics, or expand the scope as needed. However, here’s a couple specific issues:
Are entry visas normally issued to American troops when they fly to a base in Korea, or Qatar, or Germany? Or is this an issue in Georgia only because the troops must travel over land?
Does the US have an agreement with Cuba over supply flights? Could Cuba start directing civilian air traffic over Guantanamo to make US operations more difficult?
Well Cuba did cut off the water supply to Guantanamo years ago and the US had to bring in saltwater treatment facilities. It’s kind of a stand off, both sides don’t like the other being there. Cuba has consistently done things to let us know that they are pissed off with us being there, like opening up thier jails and sending criminals to Florida on boats along with refugees.
Entry Visas and/or passports are not necessary for US Troops stationed in Korea. I doubt that any NATO country requires them of US Soldiers stationed in their country. I flew over here with nothing more than my ID and my orders.
All the rules you’re interested in are covered by the SOFA, or Status of Forces Agreement between the US and that particular host nation. This is between the US and countries that “want” us around. I am not sure what kind of agreement Cuba has with us.
If you fly right to your own military’s base you do not need to worry about any sort of visa or what have you. Technically you are flying to your own country. If for some reason the base cannot be accessed directly then the host country may well start making things difficult.
As with any agreement penned between two countries it is hardly worth the paper it is written on. Governments have and do regularly back out of agreements they do not like. They may not do so lightly as if they get a rep for breaking agreements easily other countries may be less willing to deal with them or may impose sanctions but they still do it (and generally try to find some pretext that “allows” them to do it).
Castro would love to see Guantanamo gone and he tried various means (such as cutting off water) to make life difficult for those there. Certainly servicemen stationed there can’t get an off base pass to go carouse. On the flip side if the host country took more active measures against the base the foreign military could use that as a pretext to attack the host country. Doubtless more than a few American administrations would have loved for Castro to try something against Guantanamo giving them the justification they sought to attack him straight-up.
Bottom line is who knows? There are many factors involved and each case is unique. Just have to watch it play itself out.
When I left Germany in 1990, no passports were required for US personnel stationed there. We could travel among NATO countries with a AE Form86 (I think that was the number) and get visas at the border or at consulates prior to the trip. We had to be on an actual leave status to get the form. In practice, we went back and forth into France, Luxembourg, and Holland on trips with nothing more than a US military ID card. We weren’t even asked how long we planned to stay so we could have stayed overnight as far as the local governments were concerned. We were obviously not political risks nor were we likely to displace any native workers so my take is that they were happy to get our tourist trade and let it go at that.
On the other hand, passports were required for travel to Warsaw Pact countries and Yugoslavia not including East Berlin which was a special case.