U.S.-Australian defense accord invites danger

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).