Andrew wrote this opinion piece originally published in The Guardian explaining why the strikes on Iran were illegal and why upholding international law should matter to a middle-power like Australia. You can also read the piece below:
As a middle power, Australia should be careful what it wishes for when it comes to an illegal war with Iran
Despite the blatant obfuscation by the Australian Government and the Opposition, the US-Israel war on Iran is illegal.
To have legal grounds for the use of force, a country must be acting in self-defence in response to an attack or imminent attack, or be acting with the express approval of the UN security council.
The conflicting and garbled claims from the US and Israel that there was an urgent need now to stop the threat of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs is fraudulent. US president, Donald Trump, claimed just last year that Iran’s nuclear program was “completely and totally obliterated” in the 12-day war.
And in any case, there’s no evidence that Iran is on the cusp of possessing a nuclear weapon, nor that it has the technology to deliver it. In other words, any attempt to try to lean on the notion of anticipatory retaliation in this case is simply fanciful.
What’s more, not only has this attack not been sanctioned by the UN, the US and Israel didn’t even try to gain international support for the current military campaign.
People might remember that I resigned from the intelligence services over the fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I see some alarming parallels with this case.
Indeed in both instances the threat was exaggerated to justify the war. But at least in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion the US took the matter to the UN and attempted to make their case.
The other alarming parallel, which shouldn’t be overlooked, is the political one. And that’s that both wars were launched by unpopular incumbent US administrations close to midterm elections. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book to distract a population and try to encourage them to rally around the flag.
Now don’t get me wrong. There’s no denying that the dismantling of the Iranian regime is a good thing. They are an odious theocracy that has terrorised and murdered their own people, and spread havoc as far afield as Australia. I would be among the first to welcome the end of the regime and its replacement with an open democracy.
But the rule of law matters, and it must be applied consistently. It’s simply not acceptable to say in this or any case that “the end justifies the means”, or that international law only applies to our adversaries and competitors – not to our friends. Nor is it acceptable to throw our arms up in the air and resign ourselves to “might makes right”.
Another of the lessons of the Iraq war and similar regime change operations is that the result will almost inevitably be widespread suffering of innocent civilians, greater geopolitical instability and increased flows of refugees across the world.
For all these reasons it’s particularly galling that rather than standing up to the US on a matter of principle, the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, and the foreign minister, Penny Wong, have as good as cheered them on for this latest illegal action.
Australia needs to be careful what it wishes for. As a middle-power we’ve benefited from a rules-based order, and our future depends on a rules-based order.
This order saw the international community deal with the ozone crisis which has led to a steady repair in the hole in the ozone layer over our heads. Adherence to international law has severely limited the testing and proliferation of nuclear weapons, and ensured they have not been used by nations in any conflict since WW2. It has elevated the importance of fundamental human rights in Australia and across the globe.
On a more day-to-day level, international law guides international trade and telecommunications, which have made Australia one of the wealthiest nations on Earth and ensured we remain connected and engaged to friends and family across the globe.
In fact, Australia played a leading role in the creation of many parts of international law, including the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We did this not only in the pursuit of high-minded ideals, but also because it was in our national interest.
The UN charter preamble, signed in 1945, contextualises this through a determination “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.”
That last part is pretty important to us because Australia remains a relatively small nation easily caught in the wake of great power conflicts.
While it certainly isn’t perfect, international law works to constrain the worst excesses of power politics and geopolitical competition, and attempts to elevate and equalise the rights and voices of all nations – and indeed of all people.
We treat it with contempt at our peril.