By Design or Accident: Reflections on Asian Security

11. There is Method to Howard’s Madness

11 There is Method to Howard’s Madness Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s remark that Australia would be prepared to launch pre-emptive strikes against terrorists in other countries has predictably stirred a hornet’s nest in Southeast Asia. Why did he make a remark which obviously was going to grate on Southeast Asian sensitivities? One answer is domestic politics. He has been trying to demonstrate to Australians his strong leadership against terrorism, and this has gone down well with the Australian public. Yet, the remark cannot be dismissed as a mere domestic political ploy. It was probably also meant to be a message to those countries, now or in the future, that might neither do enough to fight terrorists within their borders nor seek external assistance to strengthen their efforts. It was also likely intended to score points with the United States by showing Australian solidarity with the US in the war against terrorism, especially with America’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. It is interesting that, in contrast to the reactions from Southeast Asia, the US came out in support of Mr Howard’s remarks — with support coming from the 46 By Design or Accident White House itself. Although there is no direct evidence for it, it is possible that there is behind-the-scenes coordination between the US and Australia. It is well known that the US expects its allies to help it carry the burden of international security in their regions. East Timor (Timor-Leste) was a good example of this: Australia carried the bulk of the burden, with the US providing logistic and valuable diplomatic support. Pre-emptive strikes against terrorists do not require large military forces, only small units of special forces with which Australia is well equipped. Does this mean that such pre-emptive strikes are on the cards soon? Probably not. It should be noted that Howard’s comments were qualified carefully: Only if there is no other alternative would pre-emptive action be considered. After the Bali bombing, Indonesia is taking a firmer stance against terrorists and extremists in Indonesia. It would be foolish to make the domestic position of President Megawati Sukarnoputri more difficult by arousing a nationalist backlash. The Philippines is already cooperating well with the US to deal with theAbu Sayyaf Group, and new deployments of US troops are expected for another exercise with Philippine troops in the south of the country. There have also been reports of possible new security cooperation between the Philippines and Australia. Meanwhile, Malaysia has both the will and relatively efficient security services to deal with terrorists. IfthereismethodintheapparentmadnessofMr Howard’s remarks, it is likely to be in the use of the spectre of preemptive action to prod Southeast Asian states to take firm action against terrorists, cooperate more effectively among themselves, and, where necessary, seek Australian or other external assistance to deal with the threat. There is Method to Howard’s Madness 47 Many would, however, argue that the message could have been better put across privately to various governments. Perhaps. But there is sometimes merit in flying a kite in public, even engaging in a bit of sabre-rattling. It is a different way of putting across a message and conditioning thinking and expectations, even though some would refuse to credit Mr Howard with such sophistication. Will the remarks damage Australia’s relations with Southeast Asian states? In all likelihood, it is a passing storm, perhaps even a storm in a teacup. Southeast Asian leaders probably understand the game and there is already a close web of relations between Australia and a number of SoutheastAsian countries. Public protestations do not always convey private thinking on complex matters of security, at least not all of it. This, however, is not to suggest that pre-emptive strikes without at least the tacit consent of governments would be welcome. Note This article was first published in The Straits Times, 6 December 2002. Reprinted with permission of The Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Limited. ...