Pre-emptove Strikes

[Tawasakm]

Australia was invited to attend the APEAC summit (held in Laos this time) for the first time. Pm John Howard has come under some criticism because he won't sign the non-agression pact that all APEAC member signs. He is unwilling to give up his preemptive strike policy. There is an article on it here.

There is some question now on whether or not Australia will be invited to attend again because of this. So how much does this pre-emptive strike policy effect international relations?

Keep in mind, also, that Howard went into the summit wanting a free trade agreement between the 10 APEAC members, Australia and New Zealand. It appears that he is going to get that. It is set to be finalised 2007.

Basically he got what he wanted without giving up his policy. Otoh he may not be invited back again. How much does this policy hurt his international relations? How much is any nation which adopts such a policy being affected?

[Tawasakm]

Ahem. I just noticed my spelling mistake in the title. It should, of course, read as "Pre-emptive".

I apologise for not checking that properly.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The term "pre-emptive strike" is a euphemism for 'attacking first'. Any state who claims such a right is claiming to be unfettered by international law -- i.e. a rogue state.

[Tawasakm]

You would really call Australia a rogue state?

I may not agree with Howards seeming agression but it was a qualified postion:

Mr. Howard repeatedly has said his government would attack militants overseas if they were planning to strike Australian interests and the host country refused to act

Note that the reserves the right to act IF the host nation doesn't. Does this still qualify Australia as a rogue nation?

Either way could you extend your answer a little more please and tell me to what extent you think the policy effects international relations with Australia (or any nation which adopts such a policy)? I look forward to hearing from you.

[pryvateer]

The question on pre-emption needs to be qualified. Where conflict is between nations - the technology exists to neutralize any surpirse attack ala Germany into Poland, Germany into Netherlands and Belgium, Japan attack on Peral Harbor, etc. Under these terms pre-emption is inappropriate.

However when the enemy doesn't command a land mass, isn't organizing an army or putting its air force aloft, AND the weapon of choice is a 10 megaton suitcase nuke - no politican who gives a damn about his or her people can sit idly by.

Sun Tzu in the fifth century BCE got this one right. As for being a rogue nation, if my choice is being an international pariah with it's people safe or a winner of the good citizen award with 1 million dead - does that require an answer?

BTW - until 911 as a libertarian, I was adamently oppossed to the pre-emptive use of force. I no longer have that luxury.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You would really call Australia a rogue state?

I may not agree with Howards seeming agression but it was a qualified postion:

Mr. Howard repeatedly has said his government would attack militants overseas if they were planning to strike Australian interests and the host country refused to act

Note that the reserves the right to act IF the host nation doesn't. Does this still qualify Australia as a rogue nation?

Either way could you extend your answer a little more please and tell me to what extent you think the policy effects international relations with Australia (or any nation which adopts such a policy)? I look forward to hearing from you.

I would call anyone a rogue state if it purports to be unconstrained by international law. International law allows states to defend themselves from aggression, not to attack neighbors to destroy their potential for aggression.

Mr Howard's formulation is problematic in a couple of ways. First off, the concept of defending a countries "interests" is vague and open to interpretation. Interpreted broadly, it goes well beyond the meaning of self-defence in international law. The other problem is that Mr. Howard purports to set Australia up as the sole judge of the behaviour of a fellow state -- what amounts to a 'refusal to act'? Who decides?

As for a prognostication on the effect on international relations, probably there won't be much unless Australia actually acts on this policy. State's can usually ignore the preposterous rhetoric of the governments of the day if it doesn't change anything in action.

[Tawasakm]

I should elaborate on my own earlier statement. I said:

I may not agree with Howards seeming agression

I realise that I didn't actually accurately convey my opinion. I meant to say that I don't like the was he appears to be agressive. But I don't believe he is being agressive because of that qualification. So long as that qualification exists I can see it as a responsible position.

Wow I must have been thinking to hard about the lint in my navel when I wrote the earlier sentence.

(my email tells me you have replied while I was typing this Terrible Sweal. I will post this and then respond or go to bed as seems as appropriate at the time)

[Tawasakm]

Good answer Terrible Sweal. Thankyou. Just one point.

International law allows states to defend themselves from aggression, not to attack neighbors to destroy their potential for aggression.

Would he be attacking his neighbours? Or would he be attacking organisations/terrorists/assets/whatever which are within the geographical boundaries of that nation but not of it? If the second option is the case in a specific instance does the attack still break international law?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Would he be attacking his neighbours? Or would he be attacking organisations/terrorists/assets/whatever which are within the geographical boundaries of that nation but not of it? If the second option is the case in a specific instance does the attack still break international law?

For State XYZ to send armed forces into State ABC is an act of war, regardless of what the forces do there, unless authorized to do so by State ABC itself or by the UN Security Council.

[Tawasakm]

OK here is the problem as I see it. And the reason for my last question to you TTS.

Terrorist organistaion don't necessarily claim any particular geographical borders. So they have no sovereignty. Therefore they could attack a nation or a nations asset (which could be considered an act of war if the terrorists could claim sovereignty) and that nation is then unable to strike back at them directly without violating another nations sovereignty. If Indonesia itself bombed clubs Aussies attended that could be considered a cause for war. But if an organisation, distinct and separate from Indonesia, but acting from within its borders undertakes such an action then Australia in constrained from acting. If Indonesia is either unwilling or unable to prevent or react to such attacks then should Australia still be unable to attack the terrorists themselves. I'm not claiming Indonesia in incapable - just an example.

Does International Law address these concerns? I understand your point about who makes the decision on when its OK to act. The problem being that if there is no international agency able to make quick decisions on such matters then it does become up to the nation concerned doesn't it? What do you think of the idea of setting up a department, perhaps within the UN, that could monitor and authorise or refuse permission for nations to act against terrorists on foreign soil?

(Guess what my email has told me again that you have replied while I am typing this)

[Tawasakm]

Incidentally my last question wasn't directed soley at The Terrible Sweal. I realise it may have read that way. I'm certainly not trying to have a private discussion here.

Come one come all.

[The Terrible Sweal]

OK here is the problem as I see it....

Terrorist organistaion ... could attack a nation or a nations asset (which could be considered an act of war if the terrorists could claim sovereignty) and that nation is then unable to strike back at them directly without violating another nations sovereignty.

Your case conflates distinct things: attacking a state, attacking a state's assets within another state, and attacking a state's citizens within another state.

In the first case, terrorists attacking a state from a neighboring state, the state under attack can defend itself against the attackers at its own border, and may be able to justifiably argue a variation of the 'hot pursuit' rule in defence of crossing the international border after them. This is the position which, in my view, legitimized the invasion of Afghanistan.

In the second and third cases, assets and individuals in another state are subject to that jurisdiction as are crimes are committed against them. That's what sovereignty means.

... if there is no international agency able to make quick decisions on such matters then it does become up to the nation concerned doesn't it?

The UN Security Council has that authority now. But in the hypothetical absense of the UN, the answer is no, as outlined in my reply above.

[Guest eureka]

You take the case beyond pre-emptive strikes, Tawasakm. A pre-emptive strike is legal where there is evidence that another state is preparing attack on the pre-emptor. It is not legal to make such a strike against non state entities within the borders of another. That is, however, within the purview of the United Nations to adjudicate.

No state can abrogate to itself the right to judge another except in the presence of a direct threat and preparation.

It would, in my opinion, have been justified in International Law for Iraq to lainch an attack on the US if it the capacity to do so; the reverse was not true.

The USA, Britain, and Australia are all rogue states now. They attacked without provocation, another sovereign state.

More to the point, in my opinion, is waht can be done in this new international regime to deal with dangerous states. As in Kosovo, where the intervention was also illegal, there needs to be set up under the auspices of the UN, some new mwthod of dealing with rogue regimes and threats.

[caesar]

We do have international law and the UN was set up to deal with those type of situations. We need to be able to speed up UN reaction time and every country quit playing games and biased voting.

If there is a real danger; no one would blame a country for honest self defense but not like the bogus excuses used to attack Iraq. In other words; if a country does use pre emptive strikes they better come up with very valid proof of danger to their own country.

[MapleBear]

The pre-emptive strike doctrine is very dangerous. Any nation that launches a pre-emptive strike had better have its facts squared away - and it should be severely punished if it invades a sovereign nation in a false alarm.

The United States' invasion of Iraq was obviously not justified. (Saddam Hussein's fleet of drones weren't capable of bringing down the U.S. - even if they could cross the Atlantic - and he would have had a hard time occupying even the state of New York even if he had succeeded.)

Ironically, the United States - through its pre-emptive strike doctrine, its fatal blunder in Iraq and its continuing threats and bullying - has given many nations a legitimate excuse to launch a pre-emptive strike against the United States.

Thus, Bush's doctrine may one day become a synonym for "stupidity."

[Tawasakm]

Obviously I am not massively conversant with international law. So I'll just throw this out there and see what happens.

I'll just ask everyone to cast their minds back to the fact that John Howard refused to sign the non-agression pact with APEAN members so that he could maintain his first strike policy.

It was said earlier that:

A pre-emptive strike is legal where there is evidence that another state is preparing attack on the pre-emptor. It is not legal to make such a strike against non state entities within the borders of another. That is, however, within the purview of the United Nations to adjudicate.

If he had singed this non-agression pact would he have abrogated his right at a strike even with UN approval?

Also I don't want to lose my point here. MapleBear you correctly said:

The United States' invasion of Iraq was obviously not justified.

I agree given that the evidence for WMD was obviously false even before they went in. But what I'm referring to is any genuine cases which my exist which may require strikes at terrorist/militant groups in another nations sovereign territory. What I'm really interested in knowing is 1) if the UN is capable of making decisions to authorise such acts (if necessary) fast enough to be relevant and 2) if there is a grey area in which it might be considered 'right' for a nation to turn 'rogue' and act unilaterally.

I am also wondering, given that I have seen many nations refuse to consider rulings of the International Court and have ignored international law (Australia is guilty on far more then one count), to what extent international law may be considered legally binding upon sovereign nations?

I have one more question for everyone who stated that Australia was a rogue nation. Do you consider Australia rogue in intention or action or both?

[Guest eureka]

The right to act would not be forfeited. There remains the right of every state to act in self defense but it must be provably so. Acting unilaterally does not make a nation a "rogue" state. Acting illegally does.

That also fits into your question of whether the UN can act fast enough. It cannot and. therefore, every nation has the right to defend itself.

The big question there is one that I have thrown out a few times but never seems to stick to anyone. What should we do so that the UN can act? How do we give it the power to act and to not be deterred by vetoes or other considerations. When can it be the sole determiner of right and wrong?

International Law is binding on sovereign nations. Unfortunately, it is not enforceable except against the weak. And, also unfortunately, such law is still in its infancy and is widely different in its interpretation Every nation will try to use an interpretation that is in its own perceived interest.