PM Finds a new way to lose friends.
This has been a very bad week for Australia in South east Asia,the worst
since the deputy sheriff fiasco of three years ago.The controversy about
John Howard's declaration that Australia would be prepared to undertake a
pre-emptive military strike against a Jemaah Islamiah terrorist action
being prepared against Australia has led to universal criticism in
Indonesia,Malaysia,The Philippines,Thailand and Singapore.
There is no point re-recording all the editorials and government
criticism,much of it extravagant-from Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad saying Howard behaves as if he thinks he is a white sheriff in a
black country,to an Indonesian newspaper comparing the Australian
government to the Nazis.
Much more significant was both the Philippines and Malaysia saying they
would consider limiting co-operation in the fight against terrorism.
Of course this is a massive over reaction in South east Asia.But South east
Asia is where we live.For an Australian Prime minister in todays
environment to annoy the Malaysian leader or the Indonesian press,is one
thing,to generate such tough opposition from friends in the
Philippines,Thailand and above all,Singapore is something else again.
In truth the situation is much worse than you think.It effects underlying
trends in a way which is wholly destructive,and just to heap tragedy on top
of farce,wholly unnecessary.
The Howard government has shown it will expend zero domestic political
capital to pursue good foreign policy.It argues as core government doctrine
that what is popular in foreign policy is what is good.This is not wholly
groundless for the Australian people are indeed generous,fairminded and
commonsensical.
But sometimes foreign policy is complex and involves trade offs which are
difficult for the public to grasp instantly.A good government furnishes
leadership as well as followership.
At least since the lead-up to the East Timor independence referendum,and
probably since the economic crisis of 1997,it has been difficult for the
public to grasp the importance,and the genuine virtue of close engagement
with South east Asia.
The Bali bombing offered a significant silver lining.It offered Howard the
chance to reap domestic political reward while harnessing good foreign
policy to public sentiment.For it resulted in a renewed public sentiment
that the closest possible engagement with South east Asia is necessary.
The Bali tragedy also resulted in a wave of sympathy for Australia
throughout South east Asia.
That Howard has been happy to throw all that away for a self
indulgent,hypothetical proposition about pre-emptive strikes is,in its own
way,the most depressing thing to happen in Australian foreign policy in months.
Why on earth are we having a debate about changing the United Nations
charter to embrace pre-emptive strikes anyway?
As Dick Woolcott,a former Australian ambassador to the UN,comments:
"The PM should know that there's not a snowballs chance in hell of
reforming the UN charter in that way and anyway,Article 51 already provides
for the possibility of pre-emptive action."
Defense Minister Robert Hill has been running the pre-emption debate but he
sensibly never applied it to Australia and the region.The only possible
motivation for raising it could be to render even further rhetorical
assistance to Washington as it prepares for possible action in Iraq.
But the US does not need this type of rhetorical assistance from
Canberra.It is excessive.Even for pro Americans it just seems over the
top,gratuitous,(and)irrelevant to our national circumstances.
That White house spokesman Ari Fleischer praised Howard's comments
as,"echoing US policy,"seems creepy,even to Australians who love and
cherish the US alliance.
Of course the theoretical possibility of pre-emption against deadly,hostile
elements in a rogue state,or a failed state,is defensible.But Howard was
asked the question about Jemaah Islamiah in South east Asia so his glibly
positive response had massive regional repercussions.
In South east Asia we are not surrounded by rogue states or failed
states.We are surrounded by friends.Surely,therefore,a question which
linked pre-emptive military action to the South east Asian region should
have set off warning bells for a politician as smart and experienced as Howard.
Any competent diplomat could have predicted the regional reaction,if not
necessarily it's intensity,to Howard's comments.Howard said in Parliament
this week,his comments were mesured and considered.Was he trying to be
provocative?
Were his remarks properly workshopped between Foreign affairs,Defense and
Prime Minister and Cabinet?
Was there coherent whole of government co-ordination?
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has been manfully attempting a diplomatic
rescue but pre-emptive strike looks set to join,White Australia and Deputy
Sheriff as a defining two word summery of Australia in the region.
It really is a disgrace.
From the Australian,a Moloch paper.Sat Dec 7.02.page 17. Greg Sheridan.
