Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Debate on Australia's presence in Afghanistan? What debate?

By George Venturini - posted Friday, 29 October 2010

The chances that we may learn the truth on this subject from the "debate" now progressing through Parliament are very slim.

A proper sense of history would have indicated the impossibility of "winning" a war in the tribal world of Afghanistan. Even a little knowledge of history would have meant familiarity with the failures of Cyrus, Darius, Alexander and the British Raj. Knowledge of events only thirty years ago would have explained how a world power was humiliated by bands of raggedy partisans, some of them armed and organised by American "intelligence".

A modest knowledge of the law would have been decisive.


The United States invaded Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, ostensibly to pursue al Qa'ida, held responsible for the outrages in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The invasion was an act of misdirected revenge, because the majority of the plane hijackers were Saudis, and the nervous centre of the operation was Hamburg, Germany. There is no evidence linking Afghanistan with the attacks. There are some indications that the Taliban offered to deliver up Osama bin Laden, under certain conditions, to the United States months before and even one month after it began the invasion. The offers were rejected. Revenge was obviously preferred.

In any event, revenge is not a legal ground for going to war, which is a crime under the UN Charter unless a) for self-defence or b) under UN Security Council authorisation.

There was no legal basis for the invasion: neither UN Resolution of the Security Council 1368/12.09.2001 nor UNSC Resolution 1373/28.09.01 authorised it.

Australia joined between October and December 01. The current "reasons" being given are based on "the national interest" and "solidarity with an ally."

Intervention was deemed authorised by the ANZUS Treaty, presumably Article IV, by which “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”


Australia's presence in Afghanistan is in violation of Article2(4) of the UN Charter, whereby: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ”

Nor does Australia's action meet the letter and spirit of Article51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Time has revolved the reasons for Australia's intervention, from "solidarity with our great and powerful friend the US", "obligations under ANZUS", a sharing of "self-defence", to "the capture of Osama bin Laden", 'the pursuit of Taliban', the "war on terror", "avenging the victims of the Bali outrage", "establishing freedom", "honouring human rights", "liberating Afghan women", "supporting free elections", "training the Afghan National Army". They are all ex post facto rationalisations. Nor can they be justified with that mysterious, never defined passe-partout which is "the national interest".

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

38 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr. V. G. Venturini, is a "retired" academic, who "was in the law" for some forty years and, while he is still looking for justice, consoles himself by repeating “Ancora imparo”.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 38 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy