Howard strikes again

Unilateralism is in vogue, and it's damn disturbing.

Further evidence of this came from Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Sunday, who said in a television interview that he was prepared to act against terrorists in neighboring Asian countries. He was toying with an idea that U.S. President George W. Bush described as the "preemptive strike" concept, or the right of a nation to launch a first strike if it felt that its own interests were under threat.

Bush has invoked this concept in planning America's expected attack on Iraq as part of his overall war on terror. It is not clear which Asian countries Howard had in mind, or whether he was still at the stage of thinking aloud, or whether he was simply politicking.

What is most disturbing is not so much the concept of preemptive strikes as the tendency for nations to go it alone, or to act unilaterally. Nations are increasingly moving away from international or regional cooperation as they act in what they believe is in their own best interests. Ironically, the nations that are indulging in unilateralism are the same ones who are touting the benefits of globalization, which is founded upon the existence of strong international cooperation in all fields.

Unilateralism has its limits and its dangers too.

President George W. Bush may feel he has been able to get away with some unilateral acts by virtue of America being the sole superpower, but they come at the expense of sowing global distrust, and even contempt, of the United States.

Not surprisingly, Bush's preemptive strike concept has gained little international support. World opinion remains unconvinced about the U.S.'s logic for wanting to attack Iraq because the evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad and the Al Qaida terrorist group is flimsy and circumstantial. But theories abound in the meantime about Bush's ulterior motives, ranging from exacting revenge on his father's behalf against Saddam Hussein, to America's strategic oil interests in the region.

While Australia may claim to have military superiority, it could hardly regard itself as the only power in the region for it to feel so confident about launching unilateral military action against one or two of its neighbors.

On this basis, we should be able to quickly discount the threat that Howard's remarks at the weekend implied.

It was Howard's arrogance, by making such remarks, however, that many in Asia found offensive. This is not the first time that the Australian leader has antagonized his Asian neighbors as he fans the nationalist and patriotic sentiments of his people. But his game of playing domestic politics is increasingly coming at the expense of Australia's relations with Asia. And his game will, sooner or later, backfire on Australia's own interests.

John Howard's insensitive remarks, for one, are not going to improve existing regional cooperation to stamp out the threat of terrorism. Following the Oct. 12 Bali bomb blast, terrorism is now widely recognized by countries in the region as a common threat, given that the terrorist network is believed to be operating across national borders. Australia and Indonesia, as the main victims of the Bali attacks, have even formed a joint investigative team to pursue the case. And, it must be admitted, this team has made some significant breakthroughs.

Australia's unilateralism, even if it is still at the "thinking-aloud" stage, is only going to undermine all the existing collaboration programs, including the Bali investigation.

John Howard's preemptive strike concept, if it ever becomes Australia's policy, would encourage or force other countries in the region to incorporate it into their own defense policies. If that were to happen, there would be no limit on how far nations could act alone in the name of defending their own national interests. Nations would then have to live in a climate of constant mutual suspicion and fear.

If we did not know Prime Minister John Howard better, we might think that he was trying to start a third world war in this part of the world. We know Howard and Australia enough that this was not the case. Still, it is very dangerous for someone in his position to publicly entertain the concept of preemptive strikes in the first place.