RAMSI criticism - building accountability or assisting terrorism?

The specifics of domestic Australian anti-terror legislation are not usually a cause for direct concern in the Solomons.

This in spite of the fervent belief of many Australian commentators that failed Melanesian states are at risk of becoming hives of Islamist terror. And have therefore become the subject of military interventions to prop them up as a first line of defence against the international terror.

But a recent interview on abc's "The World Today" with the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Professor David Weisbrot, highlighted the slipperiness of the slope:

SIMON LAUDER: The Federal Government passed the Anti Terrorism Act late last year, making it an offence to urge people to "assist" an enemy at war with Australia.

But the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Professor David Weisbrot, says the definition of "assistance" under the legislation is too vague.

DAVID WEISBROT: So many people put to us the idea that if I criticise, for example, Australia's intervention in Afghanistan or in Iraq, or even in the Solomon Islands for example, that that may be giving aid and comfort to the opponents of Australian intervention and therefore constitute assisting.

Weisbrot goes on to point out that mere criticism is unlikely to meet the standards of "assistance" envisioned in the legislation.

Nonetheless, it remains jarring to see RAMSI criticism juxtaposed with say, planning a chemical attack on the ARL final. Particularly since there is an important role for public criticism in the performance appraisal of massively expensive security-development interventions such as RAMSI.

A culture of accountability is a key feature in Australian government rhetoric both on aid and the war on terror:

We cannot – indeed, must not – shirk our shared responsibility to openness, transparency and accountability in the Asia Pacific region - in government, in business, and in the wider community. (Foreign Minister Downer's speech to ASEAN in 2002 on "Terrorism and Stability in the Region")

Improved political accountability can only be achieved through demand for reform from within a country. (AusAID's strategy on fragile states)

At the most basic level, "fair comment" criticism in the Australian media, of multibillion dollar Pacific regional interventions is no different from criticism of any other publicly funded policy. Does robust criticism of health, labour or superannuation schemes attract a potential charge of sedition?

At another level, critical analysis from within an intervened country is good (some would say the best) guidance to policymakers and the Australian public that ultimately funds them. Finally, healthy, even pointed criticism may be the most convincing first fruits of a blossoming culture of public accountability in the intervened countries.

Or perhaps not, according to the current Australian Anti Terrorism Act.