A new dimension to the war against terrorism

A new dimension to the war against terrorism

Hilman Adil, Political Analysts, Jakarta

Australian Prime Minister John Howard again drew the ire and
contempt of a few of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) countries in an off-the-cuff remark recently revealed
that he was prepared to act against terrorists in neighboring
Asian countries and that he hoped international law and the UN
Charter could be changed to empower nations to strike
preemptively against the terrorist groups planning an attack.

The reaction from ASEAN countries was immediate and severe.
From the Australian government's side, reopening the issue of
preemptive strikes came as a surprise to some members, including
reportedly its own Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. However, in
an interview with CNN he stated that "to extrapolate from all of
this that Australia actually has some sort of a new doctrine,
that it is going to bomb its neighbors, is really just absurd".

When Howard was asked on Australia's channel Nine TV whether
he would be prepared to act if Jamaah Islamiah members in a
neighboring country were readying for an attack on Australia, he
responded: "If you believed that somebody was going to launch an
attack against your country, and you had the capacity to stop it
and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity
then, of course you have to use it".

Strong support for Howard came from the U.S. government, as
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated that Bush "of course
supports preemptive action" since that is part of America's
doctrine because of the different nature of terrorism.

One important question should be raised why Howard at this
juncture made this statement, especially when a UN inspection
team is still in Iraq. Such timing to some observers in Australia
was unfortunate. Another point was whether he overlooked the
dangerous implications for the region since possibly he had only
his domestic constituency in mind. Or was he overconfident that
he could get away with it knowing that he had Washington's
support of the issue.

And did he ever consider that the case for military preemptive
strikes might also be used by regional governments against
Australia "if they identified what they thought was a threat to
their security in Australia, they are entitled to consider a
preemptive military action against Australian territory" as was
aptly stated by Labor's foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Radd.

Another point which needs some clarification of Howard's
statement refers to Australia's preparedness to act against
terrorists in neighboring countries that in case the party
responsible for attacks on Australia is not the government of the
country from which the terrorists operate but a non-state entity
and whether use of armed force that causes injury to that country
is lawful.

The UN Charter is not drafted with such situations in mind. An
argument which forms the legal basis of the Bush doctrine which
Howard fully supports, maintains that the principle of article 51
of the UN charter could extend to such a case if the government
is knowingly harboring the terrorists.

President Bush is on record as stating that in considering the
response to these acts, the U.S. will make no distinction between
perpetrators of the acts and the states that harbor them.
Therefore, even in the absence of a UN Security authorization,
any armed reprisals against "harboring terrorists" could be
justified as an act of self-defense. However, the UN Security
council is on record as having rejected such a justification.

The question could be raised whether any UN member is entitled
to make a distinction between terrorists who committed these acts
and those states who harbor them. In order to take
countermeasures, it must first establish that the state against
which it is taking countermeasures has committed a breach of an
internationally wrongful act, i.e. actively supporting these
terrorists.

Even if a group committed an internationally recognized act of
terror, such countermeasures must be proportionate and may not
involve the use of armed force against the offending state.
Therefore, it is for this reason that Prime Minister Howard
cannot unilaterally launch a military attack against Australia's
neighbors who are harboring terrorists. such an act could be
considered as a violation of the UN Charter.