This week Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles were in Washington DC for Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).
It would have been an opportunity for them to raise the Trump administration’s boat strikes with “Australia’s principal ally and strategic partner”.
On December 4 in Senate Estimates, Greens Senator David Shoebridge asked Foreign Minister Penny Wong about Australia’s legal position on United States strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
These military strikes, which have killed at least 83 people, are deliberate, unlawful and occurring outside of an armed conflict, making them extrajudicial killings.
When pressed, Wong responded, “It is for the United States to articulate the legal basis of its actions.” A better response would have been to formally denounce the US government’s unlawful killings on the high seas outside of any legal process and without any plausible legal rationale.
Since mid-September, the administration of US President Donald Trump has ordered at least 21 lethal military strikes, claiming the targets were “narco-terrorists” threatening US security.
In October, Trump expressed the intent of the strikes: “I think we're just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK. We're going to kill them. They're going to be, like, dead.” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has described Operation Southern Spear, as they call it, as focused on the objective to “remove narco-terrorists from our hemisphere.”
The strikes are a blatant violation of international law. The US is not in an armed conflict, and the so-called “narco-terrorists” are not combatants but instead alleged criminals for whom punishment requires due process. Under international human rights law, binding on the US, the 83 deaths are extrajudicial killings.
The United Nations human rights chief, Volker Turk, said these strikes violate international law, noting that “none of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them.”
While the law is clear, this is a thorny political issue for Australian officials. Should they risk repercussions that could stem from calling out the Trump administration’s actions? There are two reasons why they should speak out.
First, while Australia is not part of Campaign Martillo, the multinational detection, monitoring, and interdiction counter-drug operation that includes the US military, Australia is a member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence sharing community with the US, United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. These five countries share signals and geospatial intelligence.
Under international law, Australia could find itself implicated in the strikes if it knowingly “aids or assists” the US to commit internationally wrongful acts.
Second, the boat strikes threaten global principles that Australia and other countries have worked hard to build and defend for decades.
Right now, the rules-based order is under attack globally. Autocracies are on the rise and democracies are under threat. International law – in peacetime and in armed conflict – is being undermined by leaders who seem to reject it or selectively apply it.
In this context, credible governments publicly championing human rights are desperately needed. On November 28 when the Australian government appointed a new special envoy on international human rights, it claimed that the country was a “global champion for human rights.”
The moniker should be acted upon consistently, not only when Australia considers it politically expedient to do so. The Australian government’s tepid response to the US actions undermines its credibility, particularly when other governments—Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and France—have spoken out.
Otherwise, the next time Australia wants to criticize actions by Iran, Myanmar, or Israel, as it has at times in the past, its silence on the US boat strikes will come back to haunt it.
Diplomatic silence only emboldens abusers. Standing up to Trump carries some short-term risks, but the long-term risks of not doing so are greater.
At the UN General Assembly in September, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged the important role of smaller nations and middle powers, saying: “If we resign ourselves to the idea that war is inevitable, or relegate ourselves to the status of disinterested bystanders, if our only response to every crisis is to insist that there is nothing we can do, then we risk being trusted with nothing.”
Australia would not be calling out these violations alone; others have already been vocal. Upholding the rules-based international order is in everyone’s interest — particularly for countries like Australia — and it depends on countries speaking out against grave abuses, even when those abuses are committed by powerful friends.
