The Prime Minister’s casual reference on Sunday to the possibility of pre-emptive military strikes against terrorists beyond Australia’s borders was unwise, and dangerous. That was immediately clear from the sharp official responses from Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia. All were quick to express their outrage at the comments by Mr Howard in an interview on Channel Nine’s Sunday program. Mr Howard said, in response to a journalist’s question, that he would act “if there was no alternative other than to use that capacity”. Such an apparent endorsement of a “first-strike principle” suggests a significant shift in strategic thinking, with important implications for Australia’s fragile regional ties.
It is unlikely Mr Howard was actually flagging an imminent Australian military operation in pursuit of terrorists in South-East Asia. For this reason alone the Prime Minister’s comments were unnecessarily careless. Mr Howard is well aware of the region’s historic adherence to the principle of non-interference in each other’s affairs and should have anticipated the alarm. The Australian Government also understands the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines are threatened by radical elements within their mainly moderate Muslim populations. Any suggestion of arrogance on Australia’s part, such as a perceived disrespect for sovereignty, or the assumption that Canberra is peddling Washington’s strategic priorities in South-East Asia, could further fan anti-Western sentiment. Co-operation with regional governments must be Australia’s first priority in confronting the terrorist threat.
In its “war on terrorism” the United States has expanded the definition of self-defence to include the right to strike first. Such a notion is gaining support within the Howard Government. Pre-emption does not sit easily, however, with existing international law governing conflict, built on the principle of non-intervention in other sovereign nations, allowing resort to force only in self-defence. The argument for pre-emption includes the valid point that terrorist groups operate outside governments, and across many countries, frustrating conventional military responses. Yet pre-emption still raises difficult questions. The most obvious is the real risk that an “imminent threat” can be claimed as a pretext to war, offering scenarios in which the security forces of one nation might justify breaching the borders of another.
How a policy of pre-emption is implemented is also crucial. Pre-emption may be achieved with the co-operation of another government, such as the current US military role in the southern Philippines. It may also be achieved through the arrest of suspected terrorists, as has also occurred in the region. It is when pre-emption comes in the form of extrajudicial killings, such as the recent US attack in Yemen, or in US plans for “regime change” in Iraq, that the principles underpinning international law are dangerously blurred. These issues are too important to be glossed over in a casual way. Mr Howard’s remarks cannot stand as they are, without harm. And the attempt by the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, to say all misunderstanding is on the side of those who have expressed concern has merely made a bad situation worse.
