Moreover, the UN charter did not give member states self-defence as a
right, to be exercised in defined circumstances; rather did it recognize
the preexisting right of self-defence, to be exercised at the decision of
the defender.
Australia would be justified in joining a coalition of force against
Iraq even without (further) Security Council sanction. But would we be
acting in our own interests to do this? Yes, because those interests,
including that of self-defence, go much wider than beating back an
invading force on our beaches and in the air-sea gap immediately beyond.
The world – and Australia with it – will be a safer and better place
without Saddam and his WMD, and with the beneficial effects of that on
international terrorism.
Even so, some argue, Australia’s contribution to a coalition effort
against Iraq would be so miniscule as not to make any difference, so we
should stay home – which happily would also remove the threat of a
terrorist reprisal attack on us.
Advertisement
In addition to playing down unpardonably the skill and efficacy of our
forces, demonstrated in the field most recently in Afghanistan, that camel
straw argument is rationally unsustainable – the final straw carries no
more weight than the first; and is also immoral – if we were to
do nothing to aid a cause that advantaged us, we would simply be bludgers,
free loaders.
And the argument that we should not join a coalition, lest we attract
the threat of reprisal attack is pusillanimous – a quality for which,
fortunately for us, our forefathers were not famous. Moreover, if we
followed this argument the terrorists would have won by showing that they
could intimidate us. In any case it would not reduce the likelihood of
terrorist attack, since the terrorists want to bring us down for what we
are and represent, at least as much for what we do.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.