John Howard should follow Thabo Mbeki if he wants to show leadership

South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki and John Howard share much in common. Both lead nations that are middle-ranking powers whose economic clout in their respective regions is unrivalled.

And when it comes to Iraq, both Mbeki and Howard have been the recipients of phone calls from George W Bush.

But that's where the common interest ends. Whereas Howard has tucked in behind the American flag and is backing George Bush's war in Iraq, Thabo Mbeki has used South Africa's clout as a middleweight non-aligned democracy to be a facilitator of peace.

Mbeki is prepared to risk economic harm to his country as the price of non-participation on Iraq, as two leading South African analysts - Greg Mills and Tim Hughes of the South African Institute of International Affairs - noted earlier this month. "If there is credence to the argument that US actions are driven by economic self-interest as much as security concerns, then it will be American, British and Australian companies that will enjoy the spoils of post-war reconstruction in Iraq. If so, South Africa will not be invited to tender", they wrote on March 16 in the South African newspaper, The Independent.

And unlike John Howard, Mbeki has reportedly worked the phones relentlessly in the past month, seeking support from fellow African countries such as Guinea, Cameroon and Angola, who are on the UN Security Council, to prevent conflict in Iraq. He has also spoken to Britain and France.

In fact, Mbeki's commitment to preventing war appears so resolute that he personally led anti-war rallies in his country last month, while Howard condemned them.

Perhaps the clearest and most practical example of South Africa's willingness to use its middle ranking, non-aligned status, was Mbeki's decision to send his Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aziz Pahad, to urge Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors.

South Africa has some experience in dealing with weapons inspectors - in fact Mr Howard turned to South Africa as the model that Iraq should follow if it wants to avoid war.

Howard told the media on February 5 that Iraq must do "what South Africa did when that country decided to renounce dangerous weapons, invite the inspectors in".

Howard was referring to South Africa's voluntary dismantling of its nuclear weapons between 1990 and 1993.

South Africa's strong stance on the Iraq conflict and its preparedness to snub the US should provide a lesson to Australia. For a start, South Africa is not facing the possibility of terrorist activity as a result of its stance on Iraq, whereas there appear to be credible reports that this is the case with Australia. One of the leading experts on Al-Queda, Dr Rohan Gunaratna, said earlier this month that Australia remains in danger of a serious terrorist strike from members of that network operating in south-east Asia. A threat that can only be enhanced by Australia's willingness to participate in a war against Iraq that is arguably illegal in international law.

South Africa's strong opposition to the war also reflects recognition that as the economic powerhouse and political leader of the African continent, it cannot afford to jeopardise regional security and economic integration.

It knows that an Iraqi war is disastrous for the fragile African economy. South African Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, Aziz Pahad, warned last week that the focus on Iraq meant that developed countries were not focussing on the newly formed New Economic Development Partnership, or NEPAD, that involves the G8 countries plus African states. ''All these programmes will be placed on the back burner if there is a war against Iraq,'' Pahad said. And Mbeki himself put it more bluntly, noting that Iraq is moving "Africa off the radar screen of the entire world".

But Australia seems beastly careless about the impact of the war on the Asia-Pacific region, instead focussing its efforts on a controversial bilateral trade agreement with the US, that despite the protestations of the Prime Minister, seems to have been accelerated as a result of the Howard government's haste to make up the trio of countries in the Coalition of the Willing.

The impact of the Iraq war on the Indonesian economy alone, let alone the remainder of south-east Asia, will impact adversely on President Megawati Sukarnoputri's capacity to keep that nation from fracturing, according to the Jakarta Post.

In an editorial on March 18 The Jakarta Post noted that the depressing impact of the war on the Indonesian economy - an economy highly reliant on the US and Australia - "would further weaken security. This could take the form of increased terrorist attacks also targeting Indonesian government and non-Muslim facilities".

It is not suggested that South Africa's Mbeki is a saint - his refusal to invest heavily in alleviating the chronic AIDS epidemic in that country has led to countless deaths among his people - but on the issue of Iraq his stance is exactly the one that a middle-ranking power should be taking if it is serious about showing leadership in its region.

Mr Howard, on the other hand, has behaved as though south-east Asian concerns were firmly in the bottom drawer as he has nailed himself to the American mast from day one of this crisis.

Australia might have shown their World Cup hosts a thing or two about how to play cricket but on the foreign-policy field South Africa has won hands down this time.