The Little Sheriff Cocks His Gun - Australia's Howard runs amok

December 04, 2002

Back when John Howard was opposition leader in the Australian parliament, I used to cringe when street fighter Paul Keating used to turn on the diminutive pollie with his favourite nickname - "Little Johnnie Howard". It may have been a nice tactic in the snakepit, but it did little to endear the working class Catholic Keating to the polite Methodist/Anglican middle class - a swinging vote that was eventually to turf Keating out of the bull ring in favour of the tormented to victorious "honest John".

Rough around the edges he may have been, but the savvy and cosmopolitan Keating and his breeding ground of a new Labour which had almost monopolized Australian politics since Whitlam surged into power in the 1970's ending 26 years of conservative rule, had brought about an Australia more willing to embrace its place in the Asia Pacific, rather than an outpost of British or US global hegemony. Since the conservatives gained power, focus has moved away from Asia back to the security of the mother womb of the UK and the new solitary world economic power - the US.

But today, the "little Johnnie Howard" taunt is looking even more credible, as Howard completed yet another Asian foreign policy gaffe on the weekend. From comments about being the "little sheriff" for the US in Asia, to telling an interviewer at Coolum that he was being consulted "among with other VIPs - important - people", the image of being a little man trying desperately to box his own way out is being developed much faster than by way of Keating's snakepit taunts.

Howard, of course, is in power by default - paradoxically courtesy of a man called Osama bin Laden, and a boat load of Afghan refugees. For a year before the last election the return of the conservative coalition was always going to be unlikely, and three months before the election opinion polls predicted a landslide to the opposition Labor party. Osama bin Laden succeeded in scaring the whits out of people in the Western world who felt their advanced status and security isolated them from growing troubles in the world as a whole. The Afghan refugee crisis allowed the conservatives to make immigration an electoral policy plank, and on very flimsy evidence later proved completely false by a Royal Commission, spun the tale that refugees were so un-civil they would throw their own children into the sea to force their own passage into the promised land.

Since the election, the Bali bombing further uncovered Osama's hand. Suddenly, not only wealth, but also geographical isolation was no protective bulwark from a world increasingly shedding barriers of trade, geography, and culture, putting into relief the one barrier that was indeed not changing - the gulf between rich and poor, and those who had benefitted from capitalism and the global order, and those who were yet to.

Australians in their own small concession to internationalism - tourism to Bali, were finally caught up in the flak, and an Australia that had for years grown accustomed and comfortable with their relative isolation are still struggling to come to terms with it.

Howard himself was made uncomfortable by accusations that the government had failed to consider warnings, including those from Bali itself, that Australians may be at risk. And like the US, Howard has looked after number one first - his own domestic political survival. Warnings against travel to Asian countries, visible targeting of ethnic scapegoats - all were aimed to convince an Australian electorate that all possible was being done for their security.

Howard forgot something though. Unlike his more savvy predecessors, he forgot that in a world increasingly influenced by regionalism rather than nation states, like it or not, Australia is in the Asia Pacific camp. He still thinks that Australia is an outpost of Western values in an Asian region. Interestingly, his nemesis in Asia, Malaysia's Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, thinks the same, spinning Australia to Malaysians, other Asian nations, and the world as a whole as small and insignificant racist and a Western lackey for the US and UK. Mahathir has already issued his own travel warnings to Malaysians against traveling to Australia - stating that Muslims in Australia were unsafe. And unlike in Australia, a significant group of Malaysians believe anything their leader says.

Predictably then, Mahathir reacted to Howard's statements that Australia and all nations should have the right to deliver pre-emptive attacks against terrorists over sovereign borders with typical vengeance. "An act of War!" - "It's War!" shouted front page headlines of English, Malay and Chinese newspapers early this week in Malaysia, as Mahathir's press gratefully lapped up Mahathir's sensationalism in a slow news week during the ebbing stages of Ramadam. Indonesia, still smarting from Australia's leadership in the UN East Timor Peace Keeping force and forgetting that Australia was the only country to recognize Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor in an earlier time were also quick to put 1 and 1 together and get 3. As were some pollies from the Philippines and Thailand. However, even Thailand PM Thaksin, despite being a great fan of Mahathir and in the cool hard light of the next day, tempered his comments, reinforcing that too much was being read into Howard's comments and that Australia was a good friend of Thailand. He was still concerned, as many are of course, but refrained from the name calling and propaganda emanating from his Southern neighbour. Because, that's what friends are for...

Howard's people countered that Howard was talking "hypothetically", reinforcing to many Australians that Howard is losing his grip. Besides, why speak hypothetically when you know what reaction this will get in those in your region, apart from stating again your "all the way with GWB" spin? And of course launching attacks against residents of another country without asking first is indeed an act of war. Indeed what would Australians think if the US or Malaysia launched missiles onto the houses of suspected sympathisers in downtown suburban Perth or Bondi Beach? They would be pretty pissed off too. Then again, it would be pretty hard for anyone that supports the US's threats against Iraq as well as their invasion of Afghanistan (though the latter had elements of both pre-and-post-emptive actions), to disagree with Howard, as the principle is the same.

In one way, Mahathir's statements can be ignored due to his consistent personal agenda relating to anything to do with Australia. He sees Australia as a competitor to Malaysia's own position in Asia, as a country that has thwarted his plans for Asia only linkages and bodies and as a country whose political system is foreign to their Northern neighbours - (forgetting of course that the political systems of Asian countries run the gamut from full democracies, to communism, socialism, benevolent capitalism and just plain anarchy - they don't all subscribe to that manufactured notion of all-encompassing "Asian values" either. ). Again, he refers to his old standby of Australia's past treatment of their aboriginals, as a way of denigration of the source no matter the issue. Howard's suggestions also run counter to Mahathir's strong espousal of the principle of "non-interference" in the policies of other governments, especially as it relates to ASEAN. The non-interference principle is in effect a way of covering up differences among countries from public view, and presenting fait-accomplies engineered by the elite of each country alone. Mahathir would like all the guys to sit around a table and thrash things out, and only then "sell" the solution to people he cannot trust to engage in open debate through government owned print and broadcast media. Most people would not disagree with the first part, but most societies are more comfortable with a broader level of participation in debate and decision making.

In another way, Mahathir has every reason to be affronted, even if he had to extrapolate Howard's comments that mentioned no country in particular as a threat against Malaysia. Malaysia has indeed far more experience in dealing with terrorism and religious extremists who aim to topple a democratically elected government than most countries in the world. This goes way beyond the launch any self proclaimed "War Against Terror" by the US. Even though some Australians and their politicians may disagree with the manner in which suspects are arrested and silenced in Malaysia, Malaysia CAN teach Australia a lesson or two in such areas as experience with the methods and character of international terrorists - and dialogue must be a first option. Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand too can help, as well as the US.

Nevertheless Australians can do without the increasingly isolationist and panicked reactions of a hemmed in Australian conservative administration, who when under threat, their chief spokesman jumps into his Deputy Dawg costume and sneaks up to you with his pop gun.

Chao Phraya River Rat in Politics and Government on December 04, 2002 11:52 AM

Sponsor APMF Member

Comments

Hi from Polo Elisa cool amazing this page

Posted by: Black bbws on June 4, 2004 12:41 AM

Posted by: home on October 3, 2004 12:49 PM

Posted by: Maya on October 10, 2004 10:42 PM

Posted by: Maya on October 18, 2004 12:38 AM

There is no great genius without some touch of madness.

Posted by: penis enlargement on October 21, 2004 10:11 AM

Posted by: losartan on October 23, 2004 04:26 PM