Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Australia Ready To Strike Abroad
BBC ^ | 12-1-2002

Posted on 12/01/2002 8:03:40 AM PST by 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document was drawn up when conflicts were defined in terms of one nation attacking another nation - and was now out-of-date.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."


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: abroad; australia; strike
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Enterprise
Bump.
22 posted on 12/01/2002 9:47:05 AM PST by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chris1
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.

23 posted on 12/01/2002 10:01:34 AM PST by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blam
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'.
24 posted on 12/01/2002 10:03:01 AM PST by Noumenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam
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.

25 posted on 12/01/2002 10:05:00 AM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
It's good to see Australia coming around to our way of thinking.
26 posted on 12/01/2002 10:11:42 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
" 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.

27 posted on 12/01/2002 10:15:01 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: blam
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?
29 posted on 12/01/2002 10:57:06 AM PST by Robert357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
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.
30 posted on 12/01/2002 10:57:17 AM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
What does ring true to you? Maybe ding-a-ling! ding-a-ling!
31 posted on 12/01/2002 11:21:34 AM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
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.

32 posted on 12/01/2002 11:41:27 AM PST by Citizen Tom Paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blam; cornelis
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.
33 posted on 12/01/2002 11:42:32 AM PST by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
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.

34 posted on 12/01/2002 11:42:39 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
Thatcher, the Hudson Institute, and others have promoted such.
35 posted on 12/01/2002 12:02:46 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: blam
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.

36 posted on 12/01/2002 12:36:16 PM PST by germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
I much prefer your view.
37 posted on 12/01/2002 2:09:10 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
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.
38 posted on 12/01/2002 2:15:01 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
What does ring true to you?

That people are basically good. and you?

39 posted on 12/01/2002 2:29:42 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
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.

40 posted on 12/01/2002 2:36:36 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson