Howard's view on terror likely to provoke resentment
Asian politicians who have railed against Western arrogance in the past will feel vindicated after Australian Prime Minister John Howard's wish for pre-emptive strikes against alleged terrorists in the region.
Initial responses to Mr Howard's comments, such as Indonesia expressing confidence in continuing to 'play by the rules' of international diplomacy disguise a bitter satisfaction in some circles that Australia has once again lived up to its more negative image in the region.
Every reactionary comment made by Asian politicians who like to play on alleged contrasts between Asian values and Western arrogance now appears vindicated.
Malaysia and Indonesia have long had specific gripes with their large southern and largely Western neighbour, whose leader once bragged about being 'deputy sheriff' to President George W. Bush's United States.
It is a widespread prejudice, at least in some Asian circles, that Australian politicians and the country's feisty media presume to make judgments about how Asian countries conduct themselves, their democracies, their press and human rights. Such judgment from the West feeds into anti-colonialist sentiment and the envy of many Asian nations of Australia's relative wealth.
Their reaction to a vision of Australian special forces abseiling into Asian domestic politics, perhaps intervening in complex power balances between often obscure Muslim societies, can only be one of outrage.
Even if Mr Howard now tries to back off, claiming his comments were hypothetical, damage to Australia's diplomacy and trustworthiness in the region has been done. Either Mr Howard is careless of what his colleagues in neighbouring countries think of his statements, or he has little idea what the reaction might be. Either is a disturbing conclusion to reach about a key state in the region.
On another level, discussion will focus on what Mr Howard actually meant - his line that the world has changed and that international law must change with it is controversial enough to spark new debate.
Mr Howard seems to think that the bombing attack in Bali which left over 100 of his citizens dead is part of an international terror campaign - something still doubted by many analysts. He also appears to be saying that such acts have changed the world so much that a body of international law which respects nation-states must be overhauled.
By arguing for a perceived 'right' to invade other countries in the name of fighting terrorism, he is almost suggesting that nation-states are no longer relevant structures around which to construct international relations. That is bold enough, but it also denies much of the content of the UN charter Mr Howard now wants to change.
More than this, his comments will serve only to promote yet more denunciations of the alleged poverty of Western ideals by radical Islamists or other sources of resentment against the West in Asia, conceivably even provoking fresh attacks.
At a time when many moderate Muslims are fighting to hold on to their own ideals of tolerance and mutual respect, rash words by the leader of a country once known for its defence of human rights only damage their cause.
