George Bush invented it. John Howard and Tony Blair endorsed it. Most other nations opposed it. The world's religious leaders called it unjust and immoral and the United Nations declared it illegal. And now the Australian government has adopted the "pre-emptive doctrine" as foreign policy.
A pre-emptive military strike against a sovereign nation is contrary to accepted international law and all conventions dealing with relations between nations. The doctrine of pre-emption first emerged in the lead-up to Iraqi war when US President George Bush vowed to attack Iraq claiming that Saddam Hussein had non-conventional weapons and was preparing to pass them over to terrorists. Australia was the first country to endorse the doctrine.
The "coalition of the willing" headed by the US, Great Britain and Australia broke all rules of international politics when it invaded Iraq on the perceived - and spurious at it turned out to be - threat of Saddam Hussein and his regime to global security. More importantly, it was done against the wishes and the authority of the UN Security Council. Leaving aside the almost total failure, so far, to bring law and order to Iraq, this action set a precedent, which any unscrupulous national leader could use in the future, for political expediency.
That is exactly what the Australia's Prime Minister has done in the current election campaign.
Buoyed by the political advantage that flowed to him from the storming of the Tampa, the terror attacks of September 11, and his handling of the Bali bombing a year later, security was to be the bedrock of John Howard's next term as Prime Minister. But, following the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, the Labour opposition has been gaining ground with the claim that involvement in Iraq had diverted attention from local threats, particularly from Jemma Islamia and with Labour's own policy of close co-operation with neighbouring countries to protect Australia from terrorism.
To counter Labour, last week John Howard announced he would establish six crack Federal flying squads to be based across the region to combat terrorist risks at their source - the Islamist recruiting grounds of Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. He went further. When asked whether he would send Australian forces into any country in South East Asia that was seemingly habouring terrorist groups, he said "Of course."
Howard said a pre-emptive strike would be legal, as international law "sanctions, actions in self-defence". He was dismissive of the recent pronouncement by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that from "the UN charter point of view such action was illegal".
It is difficult to see the Prime Minister's statement as mere " election talk". On the contrary, it is a firm affirmation of his belief in the legality and morality of the pre-emptive doctrine. In 2002, Howard had called for a rewrite of the UN charter to allow pre-emptive strikes against terrorists on foreign soil.
Howard was supported by his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer who went on to suggest that, " it would be absolutely understandable if the Indonesian air force bombed Australia believing terrorists who threatened Indonesia were located there."
Defence Minister Robert Hill said, " You don't wait until you're attacked; that's the principle lesson of September 11." This, undoubtedly, is government policy serious enough to be concerned about. Even allowing for the changed circumstances created by the rise of al-Qaeda and related terrorist groups in the past three years, it is a remarkable development in Australian politics when a leader of either of the major parties runs hard during an election campaign on a promise of making unilateral military forays into neighbouring countries.
The reaction from regional leaders as well as political analysts, media commentators and academics within Australia to John Howard's pre-emption stance was swift, predictable and damning.
Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak warned that the pre-emption stance offended territorial sovereignty and regional sensitivities, jeopardising counter-terrorism co-operation.
The Philippines President Gloria Arrayo said her country would not tolerate any threat to its territorial integrity.
Indonesia's ambassador to Australia, Imron Cotan said he hoped that " the pre-emption claims were about domestic politics".
Over 500 senior Australian academics from every one of the 38 Universities issued a public statement condemning the policy in general and Australia's involvement in Iraq in particular. This follows similar statements from 43 retired diplomats and former military officers, and 56 leading medical professionals a few days ago.
Last week the Catholic Social Services Victoria distributed a leaflet at all Sunday masses, dealing with what it thought were the key issues in the 2004 elections. Among other things it "rejected the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike" and re-iterated the Church's commitment to strengthening the system of international governance". At stake, it said, was the rule of international law, echoing the words of the UN Secretary-General.
David Wright-Neville, former senior analyst inside the Prime Minister' Office of National Assessment and current head of Monash University's Global Terrorism project, said the scenario for a pre-emptive strike in the region is absurd and inconceivable. "It is almost science fiction; there are so many contingencies. It is extremely rare you get intelligence that definitely suggests an attack on Australia is imminent." "Advocating the pre-emptive doctrine is eroding relationships essential to combat terrorists in the region," he wrote. "You could kiss goodbye to security co-operation with the countries in Australia's neighbourhood."
Australian Strategic Policy Institute head Hugh White called it "dumb diplomacy" because it gets in the way of co-operation with the region. The Australian government has negotiated counter-terrorism agreements with nine neighbouring countries; to work well, such agreements require a solid grounding of mutual trust.
But Howard's hairy-chested bravado only helps people like Abu Bakar Bashir and Osman bin Laden claim their terrorism is a defensive strategy to keep the West at bay. It erodes support for Australia in key regional intelligence and political communities and fans hatred among potential terrorist recruits. It is insulting to other countries to suggest they can't or won't deal with the scourge of terrorism. A country cannot deal with terrorism unilaterally; it is a global phenomenon and needs global co-operation. The reality is that, if there is a possible terrorist attack, what we need most is spontaneous co-operation. Anything that risks that co-operation puts Australian lives at risk.
Apart from all that, it is matter of the "rule of law". As Kofi Annan says, the rule of law applies equally within countries and between countries. There is no legal or moral justification for any nation to attack another unless there is clear and indisputable evidence that a direct attack on it is not merely possible or even probable, but imminent. If there is what could be termed a "just war" the United Nations should be its sole arbiter. The UN is not perfect. But it is the only system mankind has for maintaining global law and order.
Mr. Howard has shown willingness to compromise Australia's standing with governments in the region by trying to legitimise the "pre-emptive doctrine in the hope of gaining a short-term political advantage. It is a flawed, dangerous and foolish anti-terror strategy.
(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2004/10/01/opinion/3.asp)
