Clark seen as backing Australia on pre-emptive terror strike

1.15pm

Prime Minister Helen Clark is seen by Australian media as having backed their Prime Minister, John Howard, over the prospect of pre-emptive strikes against terrorists.

Miss Clark has tried to tread a fine diplomatic line by neither criticising nor endorsing Mr Howard, who caused a furore with his remarks in a television interview on Sunday.

Her stance was today interpreted by the Sydney Morning Herald as "NZ supports Howard terror doctrine".

Mr Howard has upset countries in South-East Asia, but predictably drawn support from United States President George Bush.

Miss Clark has over the past two days questioned whether Mr Howard had in fact endorsed pre-emptive strikes.

Mr Howard had given a qualified answer to a hypothetical question, she said.

"We didn't read what he said as evidence of any indication to make any such strike," she told reporters.

"We don't read Mr Howard's comments as indicative of Australia wanting to be in breach of international law.

"I haven't inferred from anything that I've read that Australia is about to go off and attack anybody."

Miss Clark is trying to take a path that does not alienate closest ally Australia, or wreck the prospect of strengthening bonds with Asian nations.

She is keen to move New Zealand closer to Asia, seeing that as economically beneficial.

Her interpretation of what Mr Howard said is regarded as generous in Australia.

There, media commentators are in no doubt Mr Howard has proposed military strikes in neighbouring states.

The Australian newspaper said John Howard has risked further outrage among southeast Asian governments by yesterday reinforcing his warning.

Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand have reacted angrily to his remarks.

"Any Australian prime minister unwilling to do that would be failing the basic test of office," Mr Howard said yesterday.

The Australian said Mr Howard should speak softly on the pre-emptive strike doctrine and carry a big stick, as US president Teddy Roosevelt once said.

The Sydney Morning Herald said the comments were "unwise, and dangerous".

"Any suggestion of arrogance on Australia's part, such as a perceived disrespect for sovereignty, or the assumption that Canberra is peddling Washington's strategic priorities in South-East Asia, could further fan anti-Western sentiment," it said in an editorial.

"Co-operation with regional governments must be Australia's first priority in confronting the terrorist threat."

The Courier-Mail accused Mr Howard of recklessly fighting above his weight.

Far more could be achieved by working in close co-operation with other nations than by threats of unilateral action.

Miss Clark told National Radio that several steps would be taken if a terrorist attack was thought to be imminent.

Co-operation with other countries would be the first option, followed by resort to international law.

She said Australian diplomatic officials would have work to do to help upset countries understand the context in which Mr Howard had spoken.

She did not fear Australian troops turning up in New Zealand to flush out terrorists.

"Absolutely not, because of the strong level of co-operation between New Zealand and Australia on such matters," she said.

"What New Zealand would like to have is a strong level of co-operation with South-East Asia nations on such matters."

Miss Clark later told reporters she did not wish to get involved in a debate raging in Australia.

"Australia is our closest friend. We don't pile into Australian political debates, and we don't expect them to pile into ours," she said.

"What we don't want is a headline...saying New Zealand and Australian governments fighting over a debate which is raging in Australia."

She did not think Mr Howard had shown any intention of breaching international law.

"Once you entertain hypothetical situations, then sometimes you can be taken to the logical end of what you might appear to be saying, but it's so heavily qualified that I think it's wrong to jump to conclusions about what he was implying."

She had not spoken to Mr Howard about the issue, and did not think she needed to.

National Party leader Bill English was as cautious as Miss Clark in his response to Mr Howard's comments.

"I think it's unlikely they are planning some major departure from past policy," he said.

"We need to keep our heads about endorsing a pre-emptive policy that doesn't have a very sound basis, and evidence of a threat and evidence that a Government is encouraging terrorism instead of dealing to it."

The Green Party said pre-emptive strikes would be a recipe for international chaos.

ACT supported strikes in certain circumstances, its deputy leader Ken Shirley said.

"Where a known established threat exists and a nation does not have the capacity, or the will to address them, then no nation should just sit back and wait to be attacked -- that is just not acceptable."

- NZPA

Herald feature: Defence