|
LOS ANGELES -- Why have there been no Tony Blairs in Asia standing
up for America in the face of the chilling public-opinion winds
blowing bitterly in the opposite direction?
It's certainly
true that Asia has fielded no one as outspoken as Britain's prime
minister -- or as France's equally if negatively forceful President
Jacques Chirac. However, the region in fact has been no less divided
on the Iraq question than has Europe. Yes, China, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, New Zealand and others in the Asia-Pacific have expressed
either outright opposition or broad criticism. Even so, American
and British soldiers putting their lives on the line should understand
that despite all the negative public opinion, some of the region's
top leaders have said -- openly and bravely -- they understand the
need for war.
Foremost among
them, certainly, is John Howard. From the onset, the Australian
prime minister has steadfastly endorsed the Bush administration's
view that the Hussein government represents a serious threat. To
the groans of his countrymen, Howard has pledged 2,000 troops to
the U.S.-led effort. "Alliances are two-way processes,"
he told the Australian people, who, polls say, are overwhelmingly
opposed to Bush's policy and Howard's backing of it, "and where
we are in agreement, we should not leave it to the United States
to do all of the heavy lifting." Canberra supported the U.S.
effort to obtain a second U.N. Security Council resolution, but
agreed with London and Washington that it was not a legal bar to
action.
In Japan, where
polls suggest up to 80 percent are opposed to the war, Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi has nonetheless sided with the Bush administration
rather decisively. Japan's pacifist constitution allows its PM far
fewer options than Australia's: Koizumi can't send troops. Nevertheless,
later on, perhaps, his government will contribute to the post-war
reconstruction. Koizumi's supportive stance is not only opposed
by the Japanese public but by many totems in his own ruling party.
For any Japanese PM, ordinarily a low-profile figure at best, Koizumi's
stand is unusually bold.
South Korea,
Singapore and the Philippines have also sided with the United States.
Seoul's stand is notable because of the new Roh Moo Hyun government's
policy differences with Washington over the North Korean issue,
the Korean public's anti-Bush mood, and the general Korean worry
that Washington's preoccupation with Iraq may embolden North Korea
to cause new problems or in general to ratchet up peninsular tensions.
Even so, Seoul has offered to send military engineers to aid coalition
forces in Iraq and, like Japan, help in the reconstruction.
In Singapore,
top officials for many months have been publicly assuming the American
use of force to go after Saddam. As early as last September, Lee
Kuan Yew, whose views are well respected in the region, was openly
speculating about "how long the United States will have to
remain in Iraq in order to set up a new dispensation there,"
as the founder of modern Singapore then put it. Last week during
a parliamentary debate, the foreign minister, Prof. S. Jayakumar,
laid out in full Singapore's reasoning for its support of the U.S.
campaign against Iraq. It implicitly concurred with the Bush administration's
conflation of the war on terrorism with the elimination of the Hussein
regime and with its chosen method of remedy. The core of the current
crisis is "the failure of Iraq to disarm promptly and effectively,"
he said. Agreed Philippines President Gloria Macapagal last week:
"We are giving political and moral support for actions to rid
Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
Singapore's
support of Bush, however, also offered an important nuance of reservation
with wide resonance throughout Southeast Asia, where the twin fears
of Muslim radicalism and American unilateralism go hand in hand.
The city-state's support "does not mean," explained the
foreign minister, "that we are subservient to the United States
or that we agree with everything that the United States does, or
says, or requests, without regard to our own national interests."
Jayakumar cited, as one example, substantial differences with Washington
over the handling of the Palestinian conflict.
That view is
widely held in the region, especially in neighboring Indonesia,
the world's most populous Muslim nation, where criticism of the
U.S. and British action against Iraq is fierce. Officials there
and in neighboring countries worry that many moderate Muslims will
be radicalized by the invasion. The war, said Deputy Prime Minister
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of secular but largely Islamic Malaysia, will
"put the governments of Islamic countries under very severe
strain." Officials in Kuala Lumpur and elsewhere are widely
known to believe that the Iraq invasion is a monumental recruiting
gift to anti-Western terrorist organizers worldwide.
Even the remarkably
steadfast Howard has been careful, lately, to avoid implying that
U.S. strategic interests and methods are automatically Australia's.
Despite the qualification, his government is almost as far out on
the political limb as the British. If the region does have anyone
approaching a Tony Blair, it has been, for better or for worse,
Howard. But even the Australian PM can't be very happy about this
tragic turn toward war.
|