Australia's 'gun boat diplomacy'

Amando Doronila, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

In reaction to the car bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta two weeks ago, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard threatened to deploy Australian anti-terror "flying squads" to carry out preemptive strikes on terrorist groups in Southeast Asia to protect Australian lives and establishments in the region.

Howard's proposal has kicked up a fresh round of irritation in Australia's relations with its Southeast Asian neighbors already frayed by Canberra's insolent and patronizing statements over their capacity to curb terrorist activities and their commitment to the U.S.-led coalition in the war on international terrorism. Malaysia and the Philippines, the countries likely to be asked to host the Australian "flying squads," promptly rejected Howard's plan.

The proposal has rankled Southeast Asian sensitivity over their national sovereignty. Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak said, "We won't allow any preemptive strike when it comes to our national territory."

The Philippine government rebuffed Howard's project, in the wake of Malaysia's rejection. "Any intrusion of flying squads into Philippine territory is out of the question," said a statement from Manila. Indonesia, where two terrorist attacks have been made in two years on Australians-one in Bali and the other on the Australian Embassy-has not reacted as it awaits the assumption of the presidency of General Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Indonesia is no less prickly over its sovereignty and meddling in its internal affairs than the Philippines and Malaysia. It is therefore unlikely that Jakarta would welcome the presence of foreign troops -- no matter if they are disguised as "flying squads" -- to ensure the security and safety of foreign interests in Indonesia. This is not to say that the safety and security of foreigners in another country are unimportant. National sovereignty and pride dictate that such security measures be left in the hands of local authorities. To send flying squads into their territories is offensive to their pride and reveals the insensitivity of Australia to Asians' sense of nationalism.

The image conjured up in Southeast Asia by the Howard threat is that it is a pale imitation of U.S. President George W. Bush's preemptive policy on terrorism exemplified by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The plan reminds Asians -- not only Filipinos, Indonesians and Malaysians but also Chinese -- of American gun boat diplomacy being resuscitated by Australia.

Through its steadfast commitment to Bush's "coalition of the willing" on Iraq and through its deployment of 800 troops in the occupation of Iraq, Australia has etched a strong perception in Southeast Asia that it is playing the role of regional sheriff in the counter-terrorism war in the Asia Pacific as a surrogate of the global gendarme -- the United States -- whose preemptive strike policy is failing as an effective instrument to fight terrorism, in the light of the escalating attacks by Iraqi militants on U.S. troops in Iraq and the execution and hostage- taking of individuals associated with American interests.

Howard's plan rubs salt on still fresh wounds in the Philippines which, only recently was condemned by the Howard government of being a "marshmallow" after the Philippine government bowed to Iraqi militants' demand to withdraw the tiny Philippine contingent in Iraq in exchange for the life of a Filipino truck driver they had taken hostage.

Even in Australia itself, the Howard project has come under fire from the opposition Labor Party as the general elections near. It has driven a cleavage between Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Howard's stance has made more difficult Downer's job of patching up recent irritants between Australia and key countries in Southeast Asia.

The bombing of the Australian Embassy handed Howard an opportunity to project a tough antiterrorist stance, and highlight security from direct terrorist attack as an electoral issue. But Labor Party leader Mark Latham said that the preemption stance was "a foolhardy and dangerous foreign policy" and Labor's shadow defense policy spokesperson, Kim Beazly, has branded the Howard plan as damaging to closer cooperation between Canberra and Southeast Asian governments in efforts to combat regional terrorist groups. Latham seized on the Howard-Downer differences saying Downer had junked Howard's "dangerous" policy of preemptive strikes.

The rift emerged after Howard, when asked, if preemptive strikes included countries of Southeast Asia, said: "Of course, it does." Contradicting this, Downer said he had previously told Asian neighbors that Australia would not deploy troops on their soil and that the government's statements were purely "hypothetical." Downer added that preemption would not be needed in Southeast Asia, as governments there "would be able to thwart terrorist attacks."

In other interviews, some government ministers said preemption did not foreshadow strikes on suspected Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorist training camps in Mindanao. Howard and Downer have said JI camps would not be attacked because there was no evidence it would attack Australia directly. Any deployment of Australian teams would require negotiations with host countries on the modus of their operation and cooperation with local authorities.

Any Australian deployment in Mindanao would be superfluous and would run into complications with the anti-terror operations already under way. Joint military exercises are taking place between Philippine and American troops in connection with their joint campaign against the Abu Sayyaf, the terrorist group linked to the international terrorist network al-Qaeda.