(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Over the course of two years Australia has incurred more enemies than the old colony managed in all the hundreds of previous years, ever since the liberation from Britain in 1901. The intervention of the Solomon Islands which began in July is the country's largest military mobilization since World War II. A former prime minister of the small island kingdom accused Australia of colonialism. Howard is accused of conquering the islands.
Coarse-calibrated response
If the latter is hardly true, it is equally beyond doubt that Australia's foreign policy is changing rapidly. When Howard came to power in 1996, he, like his friend George W. Bush, had few foreign policy ambitions. "Frankly, I do not want to get too involved in foreign policy," he is said to have told one of his advisers. Seven years later, events beyond his control have forced him to relate to the world outside Australia. And Howard's response is as crude as Bush's. Since the turn of the millennium, Australia's foreign policy has become more ruthless and uncompromising than ever.
Since independence 102 years ago, through two world wars and a Vietnam war, Australia's foreign policy was constantly determined by others. First the country was obedient to London, then, when the United States became the world's leading superpower, to Washington. However, from the mid-70s, one government after another placed increasing emphasis on regional integration. The country's traditionally close ties to the UK were faded, efforts to strengthen economic and political ties locally in south-east Asia escalated. Indonesia also made trips as it wished. No matter how serious the human rights violations, the impending great power's annexation of East Timor went, almost unnoticed.
Hair on the chest
When East Timor itself stepped up the fight for its own independence in 1999, the conservative Howard surprised many with assuming the responsibility of leading a peacekeeping force. This was the most important military task Australia had ever undertaken. Indonesia naturally provoked itself. The country's immediate response was to cancel the cooperation and mutual security agreement that Howard's predecessor Paul Keating had signed.
In the wake of last year's terrorist attack on the Indonesian island of Bali, in which many Australians lost their lives, Howard's willingness to provoke his neighbors became even clearer. Shortly after the attack, he made it clear that in the future Australia would overtake the terrorists, also through attacks on bases in other countries. This time it was not only Indonesia but also Malaysia and the Philippines that reacted strongly. At home in Australia, the opposition made it clear that this kind of "hair on the chest policy" did not appeal to them.
The intervention in the Solomon Islands is further proof of Howard's preventive policy against the terrorist threat in the region. Since the islands gained their independence 25 years ago, they have drifted ever closer to anarchy. Three years ago, fighting between rival groups culminated in a coup and a ceasefire that Australia assisted in the negotiations. Since then, armed gangs have ravaged and fears in Australia have grown that such a weak state could become a tempting prey, at least a base and a bridgehead, for terrorists.
Beneath the surface of current security policy, however, lurks a considerably longer history. For both Australia and the Solomon Islands, and New Zealand and Papua New Guinea – two of the other countries considering joining the intervention force – are all ancient colonies of the British Commonwealth. They still regard Queen Elizabeth as their monarch.
Buddy with Bush
Sir Allan Kemakeza, Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, came to Howard's rescue by pressuring his Parliament to accept Australia's intervention. "Everything else would be like signing your own death sentence," Kemakeza said. But what would have happened if the Solomon Islands had advocated the opposite, and with it probably made lawlessness even more lawless? Would Australia send troops to the islands anyway? Secretary of State Alexander Downer admitted that the Howard government was not sure what it would do if that happened.
In addition to breaking with his predecessors' attempts to maintain good relations with all of the country's neighbors, Howard has also drastically changed relations with the United States. In the first Gulf War, in 1991, Australia's then-Prime Minister Bob Hawke did a large number of not sending troops in support of the United States, but only to UN operations. In March of this year, Howard was full of enthusiasm for the exact opposite action; to send troops in support of the US invasion of Iraq. The fact that the UN had not approved the attack was completely irrelevant to him. Bush has understood the signals, and is now asking Howard to use his navy to stop North Korean boats suspected of illegal arms shipments. Downer's response was that the Howard government agreed with Bush that international law allowed such sudden, self-imposed policing of other countries' vessels in international waters.
According to Paul Kelly in the newspaper The Australian The drastic changes in Australia's foreign policy under Howard can be explained not only by the fact that the whole world has changed, but also by the fact that Howard feels that his own political instincts have been confirmed. There are thus a number of incidents and major processes, among them conflicts in the country's immediate areas, 11/9, economic downturns and internal conflicts over immigration policy, which have jointly contributed to Australia's foreign policy reversal.
From not being interested in foreign policy, Howard now believes that it is the changes he has implemented in this area that he will be remembered for. This is how his fast-growing ego becomes as dangerous regionally as the US president's is globally.
