Australia Ready To Strike Abroad

BBC ^ | 12-1-2002

[blam]

Sunday, 1 December, 2002, 13:49 GMT

Australia ready to strike abroad

John Howard wants the UN charter to be changed

Australia's prime minister has said he is ready to launch pre-emptive action against terrorists in neighbouring Asian countries. John Howard's remarks caused outrage among governments in the region.

He told Australian television that international law was no longer adequate to confront the threats to national security.

International law has to catch up with the new reality

Australia should now be allowed to strike first at terrorist targets, he said.

Mr Howard's comments come as Australia beefs up its security measures, following a terrorist attack in Bali in October which claimed up to 90 Australian lives.

Powerful military

Asked whether he would be prepared to act if he knew terrorists were planning to attack Australia, Mr Howard said: "Yes, I think any Australian prime minister would."

Australia used its military might in East Timor

Australia has one of the most powerful military machines in the Asia-Pacific region, including a modern air force and highly regarded special forces, says the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney.

Mr Howard said he would have no hesitation in using these resources in neighbouring countries to eliminate suspected terrorist targets.

The Australian leader also wants the United Nations charter to be amended to allow member countries to strike first if they believe an attack is imminent.

States cannot flout international law and norms willy-nilly

Marti Natalegawa, Indonesia spokesman He said the existing document was drawn up when conflicts were defined in terms of one nation attacking another nation - and was now out-of-date.

"What you're getting is non-state terrorism which is just as devastating and potentially even more so."

Attack warnings

In the past few weeks, the Australian government has issued a number of warnings that an attack on Australian soil is likely in the coming months.

The country's sense of security was shattered on 12 October, when powerful bomb blasts blamed on suspected Islamic extremists tore through beach bars on Indonesia's resort island of Bali.

The Bali blast shattered Australia's notions of security

Up to 90 of the 185 people killed were Australian, and the attack has been dubbed Australia's September 11.

Since then the country has been on a high state of alert, boosting security overseas and warning of further attacks.

Last week Australia closed its mission in the Philippines, citing a specific and credible terror threat.

Asian anger

Mr Howard's comments have sparked outrage from governments across Asia.

Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Marti Natalegawa said Australia did not have the right to launch military strikes in other countries. "States cannot flout international law and norms willy-nilly," he said.

Thai Government spokesman Ratthakit Manathat said: "Nobody does anything like this. Each country has its own sovereignty that must be protected."

And Philippine National Security Adviser Roilo Golez said Mr Howard's comments were "not wise", and did not "follow ... the doctrine of peacekeeping and sovereignty."

[Bernard Marx]

Bump.

[toddst]

Why the heck can't our President be more like him? This crap about premption is such crap. If a robber is in your house with a gun, are you going to wait for him to shoot you first before you pull the trigger?

First, I have no doubt whatever that George W. has authorized pre-emptive strikes plus hot-pursuit. We may not see it happen (be publicized) but be assured it will (probably is.)

I will tell you that if a robber (read unauthorized person) is in my house, he's mine. Most states allow killing of an intruder regardless of whether he acts against you or not.

[Noumenon]

Thermonuclear dawn over the capitols of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Somalia would be a good start, wit hthe promise of more to come.

That's a message that everyone could understand: attack our civilization, and yours is forfeit. No compromise. No negotiation. No UN 'resolutions'.

[crystalk]

God bless Australia. Now if they would just cut off the whole Eastern half of Indonesia, and send the Moozies back to Java, Christians would be the majority [ie in the new nation to be made of E half of Indo] and maybe wouldn't have to murdered at the rate of thousands a week.

Than Bali could REALLY party!

East Timor was just a good start, think of the Christian lives that has saved already.

[Southack]

It's good to see Australia coming around to our way of thinking.

[nightdriver]

" It's time to limit the supply."

"Starting with the mosques. (Saudia Arabia first.)"

How about starting by throwing out the mosques here in the US first? Islam (along with others)was declared illegal in 1892 by the NYSSC in a case where "religion" in the First Ammendment of the Constitution was defined.

[Robert357]

One has to wonder what is going through the minds of the folks in New Zealand, who have been hell bent on disbanding their military. I wonder what the average Kiwi thinks about the Bali bombing and the security of their islands?

[winner3000]

I don't think you're disagreeing with me Dog Gone. If the relevant nation is not taking care of the problem, then they are "harboring terrorists". At this point, it's as if they are the ones who attacked. At this point, this means that they are the ones who violated the sovereignty of another country. It becomes a nation on nation problem, just like the way we intend to take care of Saddam (much more fun to say his name backwards!)

In the same vein, Israel should have no moral problem going after Syria and Iran.

[F.J. Mitchell]

What does ring true to you? Maybe ding-a-ling! ding-a-ling!

[Citizen Tom Paine]

I don't recall exactly, but "International Law" is only what the Nations say it is. There is no "International Law" about pre-emptive strikes at persons who have vowed to kill you and your children and your grandchildren. In fact, a much older "law" of self defense kicks in.

I would argue that a terrorists stands in a similar position as a pirate did in the 1600s. Any government could strike at them, kill them, drag them off, try them, and hang them without the nation where they happened to be located in or operating out of objecting. IMHUO.

But, keep your powder dry.

[A_perfect_lady]

See? Europe, schmeurope. I think we have a soul-brother in Australia. We are both the bastard children of Europe, let's get to know one another, I say.

[Dog Gone]

I was elaborating on your point, rather than disagreeing with it. ;-)

I'm sure that this statement by the Aussies is going to make some of their neighbors nervous, but it shouldn't. Wiping out organized terrorism is the goal, not the acquisition of real estate belonging to another country.

[cornelis]

Thatcher, the Hudson Institute, and others have promoted such.

[germanicus]

Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Marti Natalegawa said Australia did not have the right to launch military strikes in other countries. "States cannot flout international law and norms willy-nilly," he said. Thai Government spokesman Ratthakit Manathat said: "Nobody does anything like this. Each country has its own sovereignty that must be protected." And Philippine National Security Adviser Roilo Golez said Mr Howard's comments were "not wise", and did not "follow ... the doctrine of peacekeeping and sovereignty."

Guess What? The rules have just changed. Stand aside or be destroyed along with the vermin.

[Enterprise]

I much prefer your view.

[Enterprise]

Also, the Islamic fanatics seem to have widened their war from Jihad against Jews to murdering just about anyone who disagrees with them. In essence, the non-declared war, funded and committed by radical Islamics, is a war against all Governments. Of course, there are some Governments which probably aid the radical Islamics, but they do so in secret, and at their peril, and they would quickly deny doing so if confronted about it.

[laredo44]

What does ring true to you?

That people are basically good. and you?

[laredo44]

They are not in unlimited supply in total present numbers, but in future terms, they have no limits.

This statement is what I disagree with. I don't believe more than a small percentage of the population can be persuaded to engege in pure evil - like deliberately taking the lives of innocent children.

I don't mean to imply that those few, given the proper support and lack of will by the good can't cause incredible damage - just that they really are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the good.