U.S.-Australian defense accord invites danger

Begi Hersutanto, Jakarta

The United States and Australia have recently agreed to cooperate in developing defensive missiles. The agreement was signed by both countries to integrate their military capabilities and includes missile testing and field operations. It effectively gives Australia an early warning system to detect ballistic missiles.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said the agreement would enhance the capability of the two countries to tackle potential threats from countries with access to ballistic missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). He did not mention which countries.

However, Australia's northern neighbors are peaceful and stable and such an advance defense system is irrelevant and unnecessary. In fact, such paranoia puts the security and the stability of the region in great danger. Such defense enhancements have the potential to trigger arms proliferation.

Southeast Asian countries within ASEAN are moving toward the establishment of a security community in which one of the core principles is the peaceful settlement of disputes. While such arrangements do not eliminate the possibility of conflict among these countries, when conflict does occur the use of force will be out of the question.

Possessing such intimidating defense capabilities would be an over-reaction for countries living within such a friendly neighborhood. For Australia, the possibility of being attacked by neighboring countries is almost zero. Even among the Southeast Asian countries themselves, war is unthinkable.

Escalated inter-state conflict in this region is not projected to happen within 20 years or even the next 50 years. The present and the future threats are in the realm of non- traditional security issues, such as transnational crimes.

Transnational crimes, widespread in Southeast Asia, could spread to Australia. These threats, hypothetically, may also include terrorism.

While there are many examples of transnational crimes in the region, the Australian defense policy, with the installation of an advanced defense missile system, still seems to be an over- reaction.

Such a massive defense system cannot deal with such a threat or eliminate it. In fact, it could create more security problems. An analogy one could use is that Australia is trying to kill a bug with a cannon. But instead of killing the bug, the cannon would destroy everything surrounding the bug.

As a sovereign country, Australia has the right to have a sufficient defense system. However, over-reacting may jeopardize stability in the region. The outcome of a highly defensive attitude is the same as of an offensive attitude.

When a state establishes an advanced defense system, its neighboring countries perceive that the defense system is meant to be used. And against whom? Southeast Asian countries are likely to view Australia as flexing its muscles in the region.

The question is, why should one be threatened if one feels part of the community? Or, perhaps the community itself is considered as a threat? Frankly speaking, why should Australia have such an advanced defense system?

Concerning defense cooperation, Australia as a sovereign nation has the right to cooperate with any countries in the world, including the United States. However, in combating transnational crime and terrorism, Australia also needs to work closely and equally with neighboring countries in the region instead of just trying to be the sheriff.

When Donald Rumsfeld mentioned the U.S.-Australia defense arrangement was meant to enhance their capabilities against countries with access to ballistic missiles and WMDs, one should ask -- "which countries?"

If the defense policy was referring to China and North Korea, then perhaps proliferation is already happening in the region. After all, the Australian defense policy represents the U.S. security agenda in the region.

Targets for terrorism are usually those who are considered powerful and dominating, like the United States, which dominates the world militarily, economically and politically. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. has been a target of terrorism for the last decade.

Perhaps another way to prevent terrorism is to mark out a set distance in one's relationship with a superpower. If we are too close to the power, we may be the next target of terrorism. Meanwhile, we cannot be too far away from the superpower to maintain cooperation.

Australia is too close with the U.S. and perhaps considers itself a world power. Long before the U.S.-Australia defense missile cooperation was established, Australia was already known as a close ally of the U.S. This agreement has reconfirmed the degree of their defense relationship.

The U.S. is a likely target of terrorism. However, the threat also applies to those countries closely aligned to the United States. Being a staunch ally of the U.S. may escalate the risk of being attacked. Since Australia is geographically close to Southeast Asia, this could, in turn, destabilize the region.

The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).