A very thought provoking piece. A few points come to mind.
- Joint sitting will only work if the decision is a secret ballot and or is not on party lines. The problem is here that we may accept say lib/labor's management of the economy but not their philosophy on war which may not have been an issue an any ellection. The case where a party is ellected but becomes unrepresentative but is protected by 3/4 year term worries me.
- Logically the above applies for preemptive wars like Iraq and even Afghanistan but in the case of a "pearl harbour" (immediate self defence) the cabinet must be able to act. This action would then need parliament confirmation as soon as concievably possible. Here my concern is defining self defence one gun boat taking Christmas Island(proportional response).

Although the warmaking power in the Westminster system is theoretically part of the Royal Perogative, in practice it is controlled by the House of Representatives. An excellent example of this occurred in South Africa in 1939, when Britain declared war against Germany. The South African Prime Minister, Hertzog, who was a strong anglophobe, announced that South Africa would stay neutral in the war. He was immediately dismissed by parliament on a vote of no confidence and replaced by Jan Smuts, who announced that South Africa would enter the war against Germany. A second example comes from Ireland, which was still a monarchy in 1939. Although Britain had declared war, the Irish Dail decided to remain neutral, and did so throughout the war (even sending Hitler birthday greetings on 20/4/1945, ten days before he shot himself).

Presumably the premise of this article is to try and stop war by making it more difficult to enter. Perhaps the only thing that would satisfy some pacifists would be to require us to have the approval of the united nations before declaring war. The only problem with this is that it would not have worked in the case of Afghanistan, when the UN approved military action.

The fact that military action can be suddenly required surely means that the current arrangements, where the government can declare war subject to the subsequent approval of the House of Representatives, are the best available in the current turbulent world situation. When it is recognised that entry without leave constitutes invasion, the most likely need for military action in the near future would be the repulsion of illegal immigrants, and this could require immediate action. The unpleasant fact is that peak food will result in many millions around the world dying of starvation in the next few decades. This means that action by our military may well be required on several occasions. This is not the time to shackle our defenses. Thank heavens we have a sea boundary.

Examinator,

>>"Pre emptive wars like Afghanistan."

I beg your pardon?? Were you also hiding in a cave on 9/11? The Taliban were harboring a terrorits army which was responsible for the appalling acts of September 11 2001.The UN gave its assent to the creation of ISAF, the body led by NATO to depose the Taliban and pacify Afghanistan.

Proportional response is a liberal/progressive idea, which stems from a total misunderstanding of the history of armed conflict. As a doctrine it can be useful in limited conflicts, however in wartime there is virtually no place for it at all. For example, its use in North Vietnam during the Paris peace talks showed it's complete lack of utility.

A more appropriate doctrine is to use the least possible force/damage that is consistent with a very strong likelihood of achieving your objective.

"The Taliban were harboring a terrorits army which was responsible for the appalling acts of September 11 2001.The UN gave its assent to the creation of ISAF, the body led by NATO to depose the Taliban and pacify Afghanistan."

And are you aware of the Taleban's origins? They were armed and trained by the US during the cold war. They were no more civilised then than they are now, but because they were useful we called them friends. Realpolitik is one thing, but don't try to make any sort of moral argument about "appalling acts", because we supported them in those acts for decades.

Besides which, Bin Laden is a Saudi, the 9/11 attacks were funded by Saudi money, and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Have we heard even a peep from the Coalitionists of the Willing about punishing Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Parochialism and manufactured moral outrage is being used to disguise an old-fashioned power-shifting exercise by a coalition of wealthy nations.

“ Parliamentary approval should be required for a prime minister to commit Australian troops to hostile action overseas.”

A very dangerous suggestion.

Professor Williams claims that SOME people “…have argued that the decision to go to war in Iraq should have been made by Parliament or the people”. But who were these people, apart from the Professor himself?

They could all be under medication and strict supervision for all we know.

The UN preamble referred to by Professor Williams is a total joke.

The UN has done sweet nothing to “…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…” The type of wars we have “…twice in our lifetime…” will never occur again; the modern ‘wars’ are Rawanda, Iraq, Afghanistan and terrorism which will continue to occur despite UN blathering.

“…the drafters of the UN Charter established a world order based on two principles: to bring about the resolution of international disputes by peaceful mean; and the recognition that the use of force is only justified as a last resort in the interests of the international community, and not of individual states” has not been worth a hill of beans.

Why Australia or any other country should take any notice of the UN is a mystery. Armed combat will always be with us, and the elected governments of countries are the only bodies to make decisions on whether or not to become involved.

One party is elected to Government because electors don’t want the other party or parties. To give unwanted politicians a say in foreign policy is nonsense.

Sancho,

>>”And are you aware of the Taleban's origins? They were armed and trained by the US during the cold war”

This is absolute unadulterated RUBBISH. We’ve been over this before. There was no such thing as the Taliban, when the US (along with many other countries I might add) were involved in the anti-soviet war. The US never gave money, or training to the Taliban.

“The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan to capture Kandahar City http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban.

The US had disengaged from supporting fighters in the region in 1988, when the Soviets started to withdraw. They even went so far as to try and buy back the weapons they had supplied.

In any case, even if we had armed them it would be irrelevant to the discussion. They harbored an army which attacked the US and others. End of story. The idea that somehow we shouldn’t be fighting people we once helped is just flat out STUPID. If anything, the fact that these people have attacked us after we helped defend them makes it more important for us to defeat them.

>>’ Have we heard even a peep from the Coalitionists of the Willing about punishing Saudi Arabia?

AlQaeda memebers may have been from Saudi, but the terrorist army was in Afghanistan. That’s where all the training camps and arms depots etc were. To punish the Saudis because some of their citizens were involved in this attack is well beyond even my conservative principles. If you have any pretensions to being a progressive, or leftist, then you would know that punishing the group for the actions of the individual is exceedingly unfair. It would be like attacking Indonesia for the bali bombings.

>>”Realpolitik is one thing, but don't try to make any sort of moral argument about "appalling acts", because we supported them in those acts for decades.”

Which appalling acts did we support “them” in, by the way?? Driving the Soviet Union out of their country??