Defence in the realm of fear

Countries such as Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and indeed Iran would be given the green light to advance similar claims and act pre-emptively if they believed they were threatened by another country.

The potential to misuse the doctrine of pre-emption is too great to make it an acceptable approach to maintaining global and regional security.

Australia has also given equivocal support for the doctrine of pre-emption. Although it has never been a stated policy objective, in an interview in 2004 John Howard insisted it was open to Australia to take pre-emptive action against terrorists, particularly in South-East Asia. This generated deep suspicion among our neighbours.

The Howard government also supported the invasion of Iraq, thereby endorsing the doctrine used by the US to justify the allied intervention.

The Rudd Government has always been critical of the Bush Doctrine but has not unequivocally disavowed it.

As one of its election commitments, the Government is commissioning a Defence white paper which, among other things, will set out Australia's strategic defence and national security objectives. The Government should make clear in the white paper that the doctrine of pre-emption forms no part of Australia's defence or foreign policy options.

This would not only honour Australia's commitment to promoting the international rule of law but demonstrate the kind of global leadership that would be required of Australia if it is to gain a seat on the UN Security Council in 2013.