 |
|
Howard:
Any PM who had the capacity to prevent an attack would be failing
the most basic test of office if he did not use it
|
MANILA,
December 2 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - Asian nations Monday,
December 2, slammed “arrogant” Australia after Prime Minister John
Howard threatened pre-emptive strikes against foreign-based terrorists
to prevent an attack on his country.
The
Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand all condemned Howard’s
weekend televised comments, saying Australia must respect other
nations’ sovereignty, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.
Howard
told the Nine Network on Sunday, December 1, that the most likely threat
to a nation’s security was from non-state terrorist groups, and
international law could no longer cope with the changed circumstances
confronting the world.
Asked
if he would be prepared to act if he knew terrorists in a neighboring
country were planning to attack Australia, he said: “Oh yes, I think
any Australian prime minister would.”
He
said any prime minister who had the capacity to prevent an attack
against Australia would be failing the most basic test of office if he
did not use it, as long as there was no alternative.
“It
stands to reason that if you believe that somebody was going to launch
an attack on your country, either of a conventional kind or a terrorist
kind, and you had a capacity to stop it and there was no alternative
other than to use that capacity, then of course you would have to use
it,” he said.
Philippine
National Security Adviser Roilo Golez said the statement was
“bordering on shocking.”
“I
can’t believe that it would come from a supposed friendly country in
the neighborhood. You are talking about a region with very strong
government, the ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations)
region,” Golez told Australia’s ABC radio.
“This
is the 21st century, not the 19th century.”
Golez
later told reporters he would recommend Manila re-evaluate a proposed
anti-terrorism agreement with Canberra.
“You
know this (Howard’s statement) to me is quite arrogant and because of
this I have recommended that we review and go slow on the proposed
anti-terror pact with Australia because they might use this for their
pre-emptive strike agenda,” he said.
Indonesia,
where at least 82 Australians were among more than 190 people killed in
the Bali bombing on October 12, said Howard’s comments were
“unacceptable”.
“Howard
should not issue statements that would make another country
uncomfortable,” Vice President Hamzah Haz said.
“If
a nation says that there are terrorists in another country, it is better
to convey this to the head of state not by making statements like
that,” he told reporters.
Foreign
Minister Hassan Wirayuda said he believed Howard’s statement was part
of a discourse and not a concrete plan of action.
“But
if you ask what is Indonesia’s position on this discourse of Prime
Minister Howard, I say that such a discourse is unacceptable,” the
minister said.
Wirayuda
said a pre-emptive strike in another country would breach the United
Nations charter and other international conventions. Howard has said the
charter should be altered.
The
Thai government said no country should follow suggested course of
action. Each country had its own sovereignty that must be protected, a
government spokesman told ABC.
Malaysia’s
Defense Minister Najib Razak said Kuala Lumpur would not allow foreign
intervention in its fight against terrorism.
“We
are not going to give any approval to any country to launch any form of
counter-terrorism activities in Malaysia. That’s very clear,” Najib
told the official Bernama news agency.
“We
think the statement is uncalled for. It does not assist in creating
peace and stability in the world,” Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed
Hamid Albar told reporters.
Describing
Howard’s remark as a “dangerous tendency on Australia’s part,”
he said it could frustrate international cooperation against terror.
“It
will break the spirit of cooperation among countries,” he said,
adding, “Australia is thinking as a big power and is talking the
language of a big power.”
Syed
Hamid urged Howard to withdraw his statement and to respect
international norms.
Australian
opposition politicians also attacked Howard, urging him to withdraw the
statement and accusing him of a major diplomatic gaffe certain to worsen
Australia’s difficult relations with its neighbors.
Australia’s
opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, said Howard was using
language designed to make him look “hairy-chested” to his domestic
audience.
“As
it is being read, it is seen as Australia under John Howard is
contemplating a possibility of an attack on our neighbors in Southeast
Asia,” he said.
But
Howard told federal parliament Monday that his comments related only to
the determination of the government to protect Australia.
“Nothing
that I said yesterday was in any way directed against the countries of
our region,” he said. “It was not in any way directed against the
governments of the countries of our region.”
New
Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark said there was no indication that
Australia was planning to break international law by launching an
attack.
“We
didn’t read what he said as evidence of any indication to make any
such strike,” she told reporters.
“We
don’t read Mr Howard’s comments as indicative of Australia wanting
to be in breach of international law ... I haven’t inferred from
anything that I’ve read that Australia is about to go off and attack
anybody.”
Meanwhile,
Clive Williams, director of terrorism studies at Canberra’s Australian
National University, said Monday that Australia has the military
capacity to wage a pre-emptive strike against a terrorist base overseas.
Williams
said that with its Special Air Services Regiment (SAS) and F-111 strike
fighters Australia could launch the kind of mission Howard has
threatened to use.
“But
there are better ways of doing things than engaging in military strikes
unless you are really able to carry it off because you are a huge
economic and military power like the United States,” Williams told
AFP.
“I
think it would be something that would be entered into very reluctantly
because of the sovereignty issues involved. Already those remarks have
caused outrage in the region.”
