Howard a bit too quick on the trigger
The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok
It seems that every time Australian Prime Minister John Howard opens his mouth he creates a stir. His almost seven years at the head of the Australian government has been marked by controversies over almost every conceivable subject -- from immigration, illegal refugees, Aborigines to Australia's role as a "deputy sheriff" of the United States. A few days ago, he did it again, this time advocating pre-emptive strikes on suspected terrorists who use neighboring countries as bases to attack Australian interests.
It's quite understandable that Howard and his government would feel a sense of frustration after the Bali bombing in which about 90 Australians were killed. Though the investigation into that tragedy is yielding results, the security situation for Australians, not to mention other foreigners, living in Southeast Asia hasn't improved. Last week, international schools in Jakarta where Australian children study were closed, so were the Australian, Canadian and European Union embassies in Manila.
Howard has proposed that the United Nations Security Council amend the UN charter to allow a country to launch pre-emptive strikes against terrorists in other states. His position is a bit ahead of the U.S. position, which also advocates pre-emptive strikes on terrorist groups and the countries that harbor them.
His comment has drawn flak from ASEAN countries, which view Howard's opinion with contempt. Many have quickly condemned him for not taking into consideration their sovereign rights. Certainly, when Howard refers to Australia's neighbors, only Indonesia and the Philippines are really considered dangerous to the security of Australia and its people.
In the post-Sept. 11 era, the terrorist groups have become the world's most feared enemy because they respect no border, carry no flag and kill and maim indiscriminately. They have cells, operatives or sympathizers around the world who are seeking to destroy their perceived adversaries -- Westerners and their governments and elements that are not receptive to their brand of Islamic extremism. To effectively fight these terrorists, one cannot be bogged down with international laws, which are meant for national-state management. It is possible the time will come when this rule of engagement will have to change, especially when it comes to dealing with terrorists who themselves have exploited rigid international laws and sovereignty.
For the time being, though, it would be better for Australia to intensify its cooperation with those countries that still have public security problems. Canberra needs to be patient and must be willing to assist its neighbors in intelligence gathering and training to improve their surveillance and response to terrorism threats.
Australia has an important role to play in the peace and security of Asia, especially in Southeast Asia. By its own virtue, it has a special place in the region. It is imperative that Australia redefines its own role independently. Southeast Asian countries dread to see another deputy sheriff ride into town. Instead, they want an Australia with a mind of its own, that reflects the interests of Asians. Anything else might just deny Australia its destiny in this part of the world.