Preemptive blunder

Preemptive blunder

Australian Prime Minister John Howard's remark during question
time in the parliament in Canberra to the effect that his country
has the right to launch a preemptive strike in a neighboring
country is indeed a startling policy statement.

He defended his revolutionary position by stating that the
canons of international law on the principle of national
sovereignty had become outdated. Needless to say, all of this has
caused consternation in the capitals of Southeast Asian
countries.

Prime Minister Howard further defended his position by stating
that when it came to protecting Australian lives from imminent
acts of terrorism, the policy of preemptive strikes was bound to
be followed by whoever was prime minister.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad referred to Howard's
statement as a declaration of war. Jakarta's reaction was
somewhat milder, although Indonesian Military (TNI) Chief Gen.
Endriartono Sutarto stressed that any attack on Indonesian
territory would be returned.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, in an interview
with CNN, tried in so many words to neutralize the intense
reactions by saying the critics had not studied Howard's
statement carefully and had taken it out of context. In a follow-
up statement, however, Downer's boss, the prime minister himself,
unintentionally shot holes in this effort. Howard stressed that
he stood by his view that it was Australia's right to launch a
preemptive strike against terrorists in the territories of other
states when Australian lives were threatened.

There are two points regarding Howard's statement that are
especially disconcerting.

The first is that Howard was likely fully aware his statement
would cause a strong reaction in neighboring countries, but was
nevertheless willing to take that political risk in order to
achieve a bigger political end, which was to strengthen his
political hold on the majority of Australians who are living in
fear after Oct. 12.

Second, and what really boggles the mind, was his remark that
his statement in parliament would not upset Australia's good
relations with the governments of neighboring countries. Is the
prime minister that insensitive?

Viewed rationally from the outside, even if Australia's prime
minister, as leader of the Liberal Party, thought it necessary to
boost his domestic political standing, his statement could have
been formulated with greater wisdom. He could, for example, have
said that whenever Australian lives were in danger in any given
country, Australia, in cooperation with the host country's
government and security apparatus, would jointly take the
necessary measures to protect its citizens.

But in his statement before the Australian parliament, Howard
completely ignored the new chemistry of empathy and close
cooperation that had emerged after Oct. 12, especially between
Indonesia and Australia. Police officials and intelligence
specialists from both countries have been working together as if
they have known each other for years. A reservoir of goodwill has
developed among Indonesians for the Australian victims of the
Oct. 12 bombing in Bali. That is why we think Howard's statement
on the right to launch preemptive strikes in neighboring
countries can be regarded as a preemptive blunder.

If Prime Minister John Howard now deliberately chooses to
ignore this valuable chemistry that has developed between
Indonesia and Australia in order to boost his domestic political
standing, he is showing himself to be little more than a petty
and cynical politician with little understanding of his country's
long-term geopolitical interests.

Howard's latest statement cannot be regarded as a mere
political misstep that will be forgotten with the passage of
time. Its impact will be profound and long-term in nature. Even
those Indonesians and other Southeast Asians who still believe
that cooperation with Australia, as a modern Western country that
happens to be located in the Southern Hemisphere, benefits the
modernization efforts of the non-Western countries of the region
are throwing up their arms in despair.

Of course, John Howard will not forever hold the reins of
power in Canberra. But whoever replaces him will have the
difficult task of convincing Australia's neighbors that Canberra
will continue to adhere to the principles of mutual respect for
each other's sovereignty and cooperation in facing the dangers
that threaten the world, especially the danger of terrorism.