Reactions from Down Under

OBSERVING an international crisis from someone else's country is always instructive. Other people's assumptions and attitudes are likely to be different from your own, and this helps to put your own views in perspective.

By long-standing arrangement I was due to travel to Australia (for a family wedding) in the middle of September. In the event, the journey took place two days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. I therefore arrived while the shock of the attacks was still uppermost in everyone's mind but the considered response was rapidly taking shape.

The first crucial reaction was the expression of unqualified support by the Australian Federal Government for the actions contemplated by President George W. Bush. There was widespread approval of the principle of support, coupled with an abhorrence of the terrorism and its perpetrators. Rather quickly, however, there was an ugly development, when a group of people set fire to a mosque in Brisbane.

That act of vandalism produced an immediate reaction, from the Government and from members of the public, who were quick to draw the distinction between terrorists who happened to be Muslims, and Muslims in general.

The Australian Treasurer (Finance Minister) called for respect and tolerance for religions, reminding people that the war which had been launched on terrorism was not a fight against religious groups but a battle to secure freedom. Letters published in the main newspapers made the same point, and so did the newspapers themselves. An editorial in the Courier-Mail, Brisbane, was typical, asserting: "If they think that by burning down a mosque they are hitting back at Osama bin Laden, they are wrong. They are giving him and his terrorists aid and comfort."

As the days have passed, coverage of the attacks on the United States, and the gathering of international support for a tough reaction, has continued to dominate the press. It has been accompanied, however, by an increasingly more cautious approach - and in particular a more cautious approach to the idea of unqualified support for American actions. Commentators have pointed out the implications for Australian teenagers of unqualified support for military action that might last for years, drawing them ultimately into extensive military commitment. Experienced military experts have discussed coolly, on television and in the newspapers, the need for a balanced judgment, pointing out that Australia's initial unqualified support went further than that of the U.S.'s other allies.

In letters to newspapers similar caution has been expressed. Furthermore, there has also been criticism of U.S. foreign policy in general. A letter in the Weekend Australian, for example, declared that whereas it was right and natural to have sympathy with the American people "to agree with their Government's foreign policies, which are the prime cause of this terrible tragedy, is stupid beyond belief". That is one of the more extreme of the views expressed. More common is the sentiment found in a letter to the Sunday Mail, in Brisbane, by a correspondent who deplores derogatory comments about U.S. foreign policy with the comment that those making them "are either too young to know, or have forgotten, that the U.S. came to Australia's aid in World War ll with great loss of life".

Nevertheless, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of wholesale military action in curbing terrorism, and people have pointed out, for example, that Saddam Hussein is still in power in Iraq, where thousands of civilians have suffered. As one writer of a letter in the Australian put it succinctly: "Let's not forget there are kids in Kabul."

The over-riding factor which clearly colours official policy and informed comment here is Australia's geographical position. What happens in Asia matters because Asia is Australia's neighbour. Darwin, after all, is closer to Singapore than it is to Sydney. At the same time Australia is strongly conscious of its role as a major player in world affairs. The citizens of Brisbane are reminded of that role by the posters, still to be seen all over the city as I write this Letter, announcing the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which has been postponed because of the world crisis.

For an observer of world affairs having the opportunity to watch the development of reactions to the attacks on the U.S. in Australia there is an important lesson to be learnt. It is quite simply that it is all too easy - and all too narrowing - to view international events from a solely American and European perspective.

BILL KIRKMAN

The writer is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge. E-mail him at wpk1000@cam.ac.uk

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : No time for coffee in Copenhagen
Next     : Delegitimising childhood