Australians in the dark about campaign on terror

John Fletcher, The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore

Australian Prime Minister John Howard returned last week from a visit to America.

He did not meet President George W. Bush, nor make any progress towards establishing a free-trade zone with the United States, but he did take the opportunity to confirm, in most emphatic terms, Australia's ongoing support for the war on terror.

This support was reiterated subsequently by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

It is likely that the majority of the Australian public are happy to go along with this, at least for the time being, but the government would be mistaken if it were to take this support for granted.

In some ways, this is the government's own fault.

There has been virtually no information coming out of Canberra, with the result that no one has any real idea of what is going on.

When the Australian High Commission in Singapore was the subject of terrorist threats recently, the information was released by the Singapore government, not by Canberra.

The only comment from the Australian federal government was a seemingly-casual aside by a junior spokesman in the public- relations section of the Department for Foreign Affairs.

The truth is that very few Australians take the so-called "war" very seriously.

It is certainly not the subject of general discussion, unlike the ongoing saga of the asylum seekers. Even the media has little to say on the subject.

The only exception to this general rule is the repeated criticism leveled by the country's ABC and SBS channels against the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Since both channels are hostile to President Bush -- prior to Sept. 11, SBS ran a weekly satirical program depicting him as a moron -- this attitude is not, in itself, particularly remarkable.

But it has gained added focus because one of the detainees is David Hicks, an Australian.

American sources say Hicks is an especially dangerous prisoner who succeeded in escaping his handcuffs on the flight from Afghanistan.

He is also reported to have said that he intends to "kill Americans" should he get the opportunity.

A lawyer representing Hicks' family has denied that he was an al-Qaeda fighter, although the Australian government appears to be satisfied by the evidence that he was.

The lawyer has also reiterated the claim that Hicks should be treated as a prisoner of war under the terms of the Geneva Convention, to which both the U.S. and Australia are signatories, and is therefore entitled to all the protection accorded by that convention.

The Geneva Convention defines those who can rely upon its terms for classification as prisoners of war.

They must be clearly distinguishable as combatants and wear a recognizable military uniform. They must also represent a government that has itself endorsed the Geneva Convention.

The position of the U.S. government, endorsed by Canberra, is that al-Qaeda fighters do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status on either grounds.

There is something odd in seeing lawyers seeking to apply civil-law considerations to men captured in combat against Australia and Australia's allies: It is as though a minor traffic offense was at issue rather than actions that could be interpreted as treasonable.

Nevertheless, the government should not disregard the potential for domestic opposition to Australia's involvement in the anti-terror campaign.

No government has the right to disregard its citizens' interests, and people are beginning to ask legitimate questions about the benefit to Australia in all this.

The cost is already apparent: A blow-out in military spending that has already had a huge and detrimental effect on the federal budget.

The benefits are harder to find and will probably become even more contentious if, as is generally expected, the U.S. extends its campaign to include countries such as Iraq.

It is no longer correct to say Australia is simply America's willing, and subservient, ally.

The U.S. itself does not appear to want this.

What it needs is an ally willing and able to conduct its own operations, with its own military personnel, in the part of the world within Australia's own area of strategic interest.

While Australia can, and indeed is expected to, make use of U.S. logistics and intelligence, this arrangement implies a degree of independence of action that distinguishes the strategy clearly from what has existed in the past.

While still placing Australia firmly within its alliance with the U.S., it is a policy which gives the country the opportunity of a vastly-enhanced role.

On the available evidence, it would seem that this arrangement is in Australia's long-term interests. Yet, little, if anything, has been done by the Australian government to explain this to the public.

This is regrettable. If sacrifices are to be demanded of Australians, it is important, both for the government and the morale of the country, that the public should be told why.

There should be leadership and a more coherent policy regarding an international involvement that is stated, probably correctly, as being intended to protect the values of the nation. At the moment, unhappily, there is no sign of such a policy.