If we consider the following scenario: A major terrorist attack is launched against Australia, either via detonating a bomb in the CBD or at a major public event, or by hi-jacking /blowing up a plane carrying Australians, whether in-bound, out-bound, or travelling to destinations within Australia. A group like JI claims responsibility, and strong intelligence points to the attack having originated from out of a S-E Asian country. Australia asks the local authorities to do something about it whilst JI threatens further attacks. The local authorities do nothing. What then? Just sit back and allow JI to attack again? The Australian public, and the media in particular, would all be screaming for action, revenge, pre-emptive (or reactive) strikes, etc.
Howard's way is to try and get the near northern region to lift its own internal game and to choke off the prospect of any attacks at their source.
If they decline to intervene then what does that suggest?
Not pre-emption from my perspective. Rather, in those circumstances, those authorities would have already sided with the terrorists and would have sanctioned action against Australia.
Howards is, therefore, reminding the region to attend to their own territories and to clean up their own internal acts if they are at all serious about combatting the extremes of terrorism.
That's the difference.
The region doing something about terrorism, and Howard reminding the region that Australia will not be a soft target, or permit the terrorists to get away with attacking Australia.
