Pre-emptive strike rears its ugly head — again

Just as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was criticising the US 
and other powers for the illegal war and occupation of Iraq and, 
by implication, the policy of pre-emptive war, John Howard was 
asserting Australia's right to take pre-emptive action in the 
Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

George Bush, speaking after Kofi Annan, attempted to justify the 
lies and deception used to rush into war against Iraq. His 
audience of world leaders at the annual meeting of the UN General 
Assembly listened stoney-faced.

Howard, in electioneering mode, was trying to portray himself as 
a strong leader, committed to protecting Australian lives. In 
fact, his bluster exposed him as a reckless militarist who is 
prepared to disregard the sovereign rights of all other 
countries.

Defence Minister Robert Hill and PM Howard first promoted the 
policy of pre-emptive strikes two years ago. It is not just an 
election ploy but an integral part of their strategy of 
aggressive war and occupation of other countries.

Rejected

When first floated two years ago it received a cool reception 
from Asia-Pacific countries, as it did on this most recent 
occasion. The Malaysian, Philippine and Indonesian Governments, 
in particular, rejected the concept and with justification.

Howard, Hill and Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer were 
forced to "moderate" and "explain" that pre-emptive strike did 
not amount to a military mission.

However, that is exactly what a pre-emptive strike means. Howard 
said, "If I believed that there was going to be a terrorist 
attack on Australia and there was no alternative but action being 
taken by Australia, I would unhesitatingly take action to prevent 
that attack occurring."

The theory of pre-emptive strike is merely a cover and 
justification for the reoccupation of former colonial countries 
by the military, the police and the economic controllers of the 
major imperialist powers. Far from it "winning the war against 
terrorism" it vastly increases terrorist actions as the example 
of Iraq is graphically showing at the present time.

A clear indication that Howard is merely moderating his words but 
not his intentions is his electioneering promise of the formation 
of two "flying squads" of Federal police for use in the Asia-
Pacific region "and beyond".

Australia is also massively increasing military expenditure and 
stocking up with weapons that are clearly not for the defence of 
Australia but for operations in the Asia-Pacific region.

Far from cooperation with regional governments and respect for 
their sovereignty and independence, the main principles of 
Australia's foreign policy are interference, the use of military 
force and the superiority of Australia's interests over those of 
other nations and peoples.

In response to the Howard Government's statements, Labor leader 
Mark Latham emphasised the need for Australia to have friendly 
relations with our neighbours. At the same time, both Latham and 
shadow Defence Minister, Kim Beazley, joined the bidding war for 
more weapons. The ALP supports the purchase of unmanned 
surveillance aircraft but criticised the long time the Howard 
Government has foreshadowed for making the purchase and declared 
that a Labor Government would "fast-track" their acquisition.

Kim Beazley has also called for these surveillance aircraft to be 
armed with missiles, a step that the Howard Government does not 
seem to have considered. Beazley would arm the aircraft with 
missiles so that they could kill the terrorists before they could 
do any damage. On this issue Bomber Beazley would drag Australia 
into an even more bellicose position than that of Howard.

He is quoted as saying, "having unarmed surveillance spy plans is 
all right if you are trying to spot people involved in illegal 
fishing or people-smuggling. But if you are trying to stop a fast 
boat with terrorists on board, you need to arm them so they can 
respond straight away."

Kim Beazley is attempting to outdo the Howard Government in 
warlike bellicosity and such comments will do as much harm to 
Australia's relations with Asia-Pacific countries as the Howard 
Government's statements are currently doing.

Beazley's statements are also unrealistic — as though 
"terrorists" are going to put up a sign reading "we are 
terrorists, come and hit us with a missile".

Rather than expose the Howard Government's aggressive pre-emptive 
strike policies that will inevitably further isolate Australia in 
the region, the ALP has become a victim of an equipment bidding 
campaign and joined the phoney "war against terrorism".

* * *

For a comprehensive alternative foreign policy for Australia 
see CPA Policy: Defence and Security — the Real Alternative