Importance Of Australian Government's Response To Terrorism

LEGAL STUDIES – WORLD ORDER ASSESMENT

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, highlight terrorism as an ongoing contemporary legal issue. This results in a new emphasis for domestic and international responses as governments can implement new legislation considering the rule of law and interagency cooperation through non-legal measures. Such responses will aim to ensure the security for its citizens. I will focus on the Australian government’s response both domestically and internationally to the threat of terrorism, as well as, considering international responses to terrorism that will offer a global perspective on this World Order issue.

Since September 11th 2001 world order has been significantly undermined through terrorism.
This has influenced all major world powers. Terrorism is the act of intending to cause harm and terror in order to coerce governments which has entered the foreground of government policy around the world like the United States, Canada and United Kingdom. Australia’s response to terrorism has seen a rise in domestic pressure for the Australian Government to enact new relevant legislation. The principle of protection has ensured such responses to protect citizens.

After September 11th, 2001 Prime Minister John Howard agreed that there was an urgent need to ensure that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the relevant legislative measures required to ensure the security and safety of their citizens and prevent the threat of terrorism.
Since terrorism evokes fear through a threat to security the Australian Security Intelligence Agency (ASIO) is an organization that would be directly affected by any legal remedies through legislative amendments to combat terrorism. An important legal response to terrorism has been the Anti-terrorism Act (Cth) 2005. The origins of this legislation began in 2002 when John Howard introduced the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002. Although, it caused a lot of controversial issues in relation to significant changes to ASIO and police powers that would imperil rule of law and the rights of citizens; it would seem evident that increased powers to law enforcement can only benefit the protection of Australian citizens as seen by further amendments to this bill made in 2003. These amendments included a widen of the definition of terrorist offences and enhancing ASIO Australian Federal Police (AFP) powers in questioning and detaining people in order to engage in an ‘appropriate form of interrogation’ for intelligence gathering on terrorists
activities.

Ongoing acts of terrorism like the Bali Bombings in 2003, called for another range of law reforms to be introduced designed to strengthen counter terrorism powers. The ASIO legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) 2003 further enhanced ASIO’s powers and responsibilities, such as doubling the maximum period of questioning a person from 24 to 48 hours. As a result of the Madrid bombings 2004 and London bombings in 2005, the government was again pressured for changes in terrorism measures. Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock stated in The Australian Newspaper article, ‘How the Full Horror Was Brought Home’ (19th April 2006) that, “The first priority was to define any threat to Australia or Australian interests overseas flowing from the London outrage.” Two months later, the Howard government amended the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005.

The Australian federal government has run two high-profile anti-terrorism advertising campaigns, designed to provide reassuring information about what to do in an emergency, and to justify tough security measures: ‘Let’s Look Out for Australia and Help Protect Australia from Terrorism’. ONE SENTENCE COMMENT EFFECTIVENESS HOW CAN THIS CAMPAGIN BE EFFECTIVE TO COMBAT TERRORISM.

Non-government organizations also have a role in the response to terrorism. 'The Australian Red Cross Society American Disaster Fund' Charity was set up by the Australian Red Cross in response to September 11. They raised more than $564 million to provide assistance to the families of those who died or were seriously injured. Donations have also provided economic assistance for more than 55,000 individuals and families who lost their homes, jobs or livelihoods as a result of the disasters.

On September 28, 2001, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1373 and established a Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC), which required governments to take wide-ranging steps to combat international terrorism and criminalize various forms of terrorism like using weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Prior to September 11, the UNSC had established an effective counter-terrorism resolution in 1999 – the 1267 Committee in which its task was monitoring all the sanctions against Al-Qaeda as of 2000. The team comprises experts in counter-terrorism and related legal issues, arms embargoes, travel bans and terrorist financing.

An international response to September 11th attacks has been 27 accession/ratifications and 58 sovereign state members signing the ‘International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings’ Treaty as well as, the ‘United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime’ with 137 signatures and 4 accessions/ratifications from sovereign states on November 16th 2001.
Additional the United Nations had already put into place a response to terrorism which was the 14 accession/ratifications and 119 signatures on the ‘International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism’. This is an important response to realize the integrated nature of crime financing
terrorism.

The International Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (IWMDC) was set up as a response to inadequate progress on creating an effective means of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament. Its role as being a facilitator of informed public debate about the international effort to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.

Their 2006 report ‘Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Arms’ was a detailed investigation that covered every aspect of achieving disarmament concluding that ‘that all states should ensure security in and for chemical facilities through legislation and agreements with industry’. However, several workshop participants agreed that the most problematic aspect was the lack of effective cooperation mechanism among states. Furthermore, agency effectiveness to combat threats from WMDs has been compounded by government leaders like President George W. Bush who in 2006 questioned his intelligence briefers about the reality of nuclear terrorism as a threat. In the view of one analyst, nuclear terrorism appears to be inevitable in the present scenario: the prevention of such an attack should be a ongoing priority like poorly guarded nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union and “America’s porous border controls”. It was noted that Al-Qaeda’s interest in acquiring and developing WMD increases the threat of terrorism, hence, there in a need for a greater level of response internationally emphasizing the need for multilateral prevention. Such a response is evident through the United States military policy after September 11th, with the mission in Afghanistan to hunt down terrorists and the invasion of Iraq as a place of safely for terrorists and potential harbour of WMD. As a result of September 11, John Howard and President George W. Bush jointly appealed the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14th 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) was a name used by Bush for the war in Afghanistan. Australia was one of the earliest participants in OEF where the Australian Defense Force (ADF) participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today, there are still around 1500 troops in Afghanistan and currently 26 Australian troops have died.

Since the rise of terrorism as a significant world order issue after September 11th, we can consider both legal and non-legal aspects from an Australian and international perspective it is clear that there are effective responses to terrorism as a threat to world order. However, since terrorism is an ongoing threat further responses are necessary.

Biblography