SINGAPORE - Australia reignited o­n Sunday the regional debate over pre-emptive military strikes, warning it was prepared to carry out attacks o­n foreign soil against terrorist and nuclear threats.

Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill told the Asian Security Conference here that traditional doctrines of self defence were out of date.

"Cooperation and engagement should be attempted but, as I have said, will not always work," Hill told the gathering of defence ministers, military brass and strategists from the Asia-Pacific region.

"The logic of mutual assured destruction that underpinned the Cold War strategic balance does not necessarily apply to rogue states and diffuse terrorist networks.

"There will be limited circumstances in which self defence will require anticipatory action to pre-empt adversaries unleashing massive destruction."

Arrogant idea

Some Southeast Asian countries reacted angrily when Australian Prime Minister John Howard first floated the issue of pre-emptive strikes late last year, with senior Filipino officials describing the idea as "arrogant".

Defence Minister Najib Razak, who sat next to Hill during a seminar o­n strategic issues o­n Sunday, told reporters afterwards that countries had a right to act in self defence but any attack o­n Malaysian soil was not acceptable.

"Certainly we have made the position that no country should act, particularly when it comes to impinging o­n Malaysia's sovereignty," Najib told reporters after the conference ended.

"That is unacceptable to us."

Hill claimed in a separate press conference that Australia's policy was now accepted by its Southeast Asian neighbours.

"I think the region clearly understands what we mean and that is: states, particularly with threats of weapons of mass destruction, are entitled to defend themselves," he said.

"And all regional states would accept the legitimacy of that point."

Clarification sought

But Najib said he did not understand Australia's pre-emptive strike policy and would seek clarification from Hill in another meeting with the Australian defence minister in Malaysia o­n Monday.

"I'm not quite sure exactly what Australia has in mind, probably I will get clarification from Senator Robert Hill in the next day," Najib said.

Seeking to clarify Australia's doctrine, Hill said acting in self defence to an imminent attack did not breach any United Nations laws.

"Self defence has always been accepted as legitimate under the charter of the United Nations," he said.

"It has always allowed for pre-emptive action in the sense that you don't have to be attacked first but there has to be an imminent threat."

However, Hill did concede there was not a consensus o­n what constituted a threat.

"The debate today is how you define that imminent threat in circumstances of terrorist attacks and also the usage of weapons of mass destruction," he said.

No justification

Najib also weighed into the debate o­n responding to an imminent threat, which he endorsed, compared with "preventative" action.

"The full realm of preventative action is something we find very hard to come to terms with because it really opens up a pandora's box in terms of how you define the need to act o­n a preventative basis," he told reporters.

"Because it means you can just about justify any form of action against any country o­n the basis of what could possibly happen even though the country or the people in mind are not about to act against you.

"So that is why when it comes to terms like preventative action, Malaysia is very uncomfortable."

Najib told the conference earlier that the US-led action against Iraq was based o­n preventative action, rather than an imminent threat. -- AFP