Lest we forget: how do we justify Afghanistan?

However noble and worthwhile, such reasons are not usually considered legally or morally sufficient justifications for military intervention. Our moral duty to help vulnerable people in other countries is constrained by international law that recognises national sovereignty and precludes military intervention for such purposes.

Until we have developed our international law to provide for law enforcement and 'global government' which transcends national boundaries, these desirable goals can only be legitimately pursued through non-violent means as part of our foreign aid development goals.

Some argue that we have a moral obligation to stay in order to mitigate the damage of our disastrous intervention. But this is really more to do with designing a proper exit strategy than justifying ongoing military involvement.

The Government also points to UN and NATO Resolutions authorizing 'peacekeeping' operations in Afghanistan as further justifications for our involvement but it is clear that their validity depends ultimately on whether these 'operations' are themselves morally justifiable.

What then can we do to create a more peaceful world?

Most importantly, we must re-commit ourselves to upholding the moral and legal principles adopted in our community and under international law designed to act as restraints on aggression. Both clearly prohibit the killing of people in all but the most exceptional circumstances. These are restricted to proportional self-defence from imminent attack and the keeping of the peace in ways specifically authorized by a recognized legal authority.

We should strengthen these safeguards and promote their universal application. This requires the painstaking building up of international institutions capable of maintaining peace across borders. We now live in one world and must behave accordingly.

At the domestic level, decisions about whether military intervention by Australia is (and continues to be) justifiable should be made by Parliament and not the Executive, except in emergency situations. Such decisions must be made in accordance with recognized legal and moral principles, not political expediency.

Moreover, it is of crucial importance that there are Parliamentary Committees of Enquiry to gather, scrutinize and evaluate the ever-changing facts upon which such momentous decisions can be soundly based.

To justify military intervention is the most serious question ever likely to be asked of our representatives. Each Member of Parliament has a personal responsibility to decide the matter individually, not allow themselves to be directed by their Party or their constituents.

Once military action is undertaken, there must be a system for regularly reporting back to Parliament about its progress, including a requirement for independent reporting on the full extent of both military and civilian casualties on all sides.

Of course, there may be circumstances where the use of military force is both necessary and legitimate. And where courage and self-sacrifice are required. But it should only be for the very best of reasons and as a last resort.

The true meaning of Remembrance Day

If this day is to have any continuing relevance, it can only be because the suffering of others affected by war will once more be brought to the forefront of our consciousness.